Jeffrey Sachs: The Untold History of the Cold War, CIA Coups Around the World, and COVID’s Origin
02:31:33 Share

Brian mental here for I guess my hundreds .

mid commercial. No, honestly, when I started this, I I only have to do like four of these. It's unlimited to premium wireless for fifteen dollars.

Amount of how we are there still people paying two or three times that much? So I shouldn't be victim blaming here. Give me a try.

And mid mobile dot com slash safe whenever you're ready. Forty five dollars up from payment equivalent fifteen dollars per month. New customers on first three month plan only taxes and fees, extra speeds lower about forty gives details.

For over fifty years, billingtons legacy has been great deals on coats for all weather conditions. So before you caught unprepared for the winter weather had to burlington for name, brands, quality items and surprising fits for every family member. Sock up on coats, s sweaters and accessories before the, so you can finally stop avoiding the elements and start living comfortably warm up at your news. Springton location, less than one mile away, fillings, ton deals, brands, wow.

Welcome the talk cross and show us become pretty clear that the mainstream media are dying. They can't die quickly enough and there's a reason they're dyed so much that killed them across honest content, the most honest interviews we can without fear or favor. Here's the latest children .

coffee all the time. None, stop me too. none.

stop. Nine or ten cups today. Yeah, it's good. I like coffee, and I drink IT straight until minutes before bed. I do.

I would do you. Yeah, never drink as much .

as old tair drink. yeah. Yeah, forty. yes.

Oh yeah. And IT .

worked.

okay. So the one thing that we know, we heard about the movement of russian troops into eastern in ukraine and february of twenty twenty two was IT was unprovoked. S, here's a selection of what we know about that .

the russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of ukraine without provocation, without justification, without necessity. This is a premeditated attack. Russia's unprovoked and cruel invasion has galvanized countries from around the world. Russia's s unprovoked and unjustified attack on ukraine.

russia conducted in an unprovoked war.

Regression against ukraine was unprovoked. Russian war of aggression has got to be met with strength fatmir.

Putin decided .

unprovoked to start .

this war, so wasn't unprovoked.

Well, we did hear that a lot of time, so I actually asked research assist in the mind to account how many times we heard that in the new york times in that first year from february twenty twenty two to february twenty twenty three, in their opinion, comes was twenty six times unprovoked. Of course, things aren't .

unprovoked.

It's brand name. The unit is the lazy person dodge for actually trying to think through what's going on and and it's very dangerous because it's it's wrong IT gets the whole story completely wrong and IT misunderstands the trap that we set for ourselves as the united states to push ukrainy deeper and deeper and deeper into this hopeless mess that there in right now.

So in what sense was a provoked? What started .

this basically IT started very simply, which is that the united states, so government, let's not call IT the U. S. people.

They had nothing to do with this. But the U. S. Government said, we're going to put ukraine on our side, and we're going to go right up to that two thousand thousand one hundred kilometer border with russian.

We're going to put our troops in nato and maybe missiles, whatever we want, because we are the sole superpower, the world, and we do what we want. And IT IT goes back, actually a long way. IT goes back one hundred seventy years.

The brits had this idea of first, uh, surround russia in the black sea region. And russians not a great power anymore. And that was a lord palmerston idea in the crime and war, eighteen fifty three, eighteen fifty six.

And the britz taught us what we know about empire h, and they basically taught us the idea, you know, russia, IT needs an outlet. IT needs an outlet to the middle east. IT needs an outlet to the medicine.

Ian, you surround russia in the black sea. You have rendered russia a second or third rate country. And big bridge in ski, one of our IT lead, geo strategists of the current era route in one thousand ninety seven.

Lets do this. Uh, let's make sure that we basically surround russia in in the black sea region. They ve got this idea that will expand nato so that every country in the black sea around russia is a nature country right now.

Uh, well, back then turkey was a nato country. But we said, okay, we'll get romania and bergara and we'll get ukraine and we will get georgia. Now, georgia, you know, not not our georgia lanta, georgia, georgia of the black sea.

T, V, yes. So via georgia, if you wanted, call IT that home of stone. It's not nato, north atlantic, its way out there.

And the easter edge of of the black sea region, people can look at a map. We said, yeah, we'll make George a part of nato too. And the reason was very clearing and big was very explicit about IT, that this is our way to basically dominate your asia.

If we can dominate the black sea region, then russia nothing. If we make russia nothing, then we can basically control your rage, a meaning all the way from europe to central asia, and through our influence in east asia do the same thing. And that american unipolar ity, we run the world.

We are the hedgehog, and we are the sole superpower. We are unchAllenged. So that's the idea.

Why would you want that? Why would the brits want that? Why does the U. S.

State department want that? what? What about russia, which is not actually much of an expansionary power, is so threatening.

It's not about russia, it's about the us. It's about britain. Before that, I think it's a little bit like that old game of risk. I don't know if you play that as a kid, but you the idea was have your piece on every place in the world. You know, that was the game.

And you read the american strategist, whether it's big bridge in ski, although he is a very moderate or the neocons who have run us foreign policy for the last thirty years, us, the neocons are very explicit. The us. Must be the unchAllenged superpower in every place, in the world, in every region, we must dominate.

It's quite a, it's quite allowed for us american people. What they say is we are going to be the constant tabulate duty holder. What fancy word for saying will be the world's policeman.

They say IT explicitly. They say, that's lots of wars. We have to be ready for all these wars.

To my mind, it's a little crazy. But their idea was, after the end of the soviet union, well, now we ve run the world. And to come back to russia, the idea was, well, russia's week, it's down. It's a word the sole superpower are on their backer on their knees, whatever IT is.

And now we can move nato where we want, and we can surround them and the russian said, um please don't do that to do, don't don't bring your troops, your weapons, your missals right up to our border. It's not a good idea. And the us.

I was around in those years involved in in russia and central europe. The U. S.

Was a, we don't hear you. We don't hear you. We do what we want. They kept pushing inside the U. S.

Government in the nineteen nineties when this debate was going, should nato expand? Some people said, yeah, but we told gorbachev and we told yelland, we weren't expanded at all. No, come on, soviet unions done.

We can do what we want, where the sole superpower clink bought into that. That was matter. And all brough's lying nato enlargement started.

And our most sophisticated diplomats, we used to have diplomats at the time. We don't have them anymore. But we used to have diplomats, or George cannon said, this is the greatest mistake we could possibly make.

We had a defense secretary, bill Perry, who was clinton s. Defense secretary, who agg's ized. God, I should resign over this.

This is terrible what's going on. But he was out manuvre diplomatically by Richard hole, broken by mean. All bride and clinton never thought through anything systematically, in my opinion.

And so they decide, okay, hungry poll on checked republic first round and then britian ski in the nineteen ninety seven article in foreign fairs magazine, which kind of the bell weather of, yes, foreign policy wrote a strategy for your raja, where he laid out exactly the timeline for this U. S. Expansion of power.

And he said, late nineteen and ninety will take in central europe. Hungry poll and chek republic by the early two thousands will take in the politics states. Now let's get close to russia by two thousand and five to two thousand and ten will invite ukraine to become part of nato.

So this wasn't some flip and thing. This was a long term plan. And IT was based on a long term geo strategy.

Now the russians are saying, are you kidding? We wanted peace. We, we ended the cold war two.

You can just defeat us. We said no more. We disbanded the wars of pact.

We wanted peace. We wanted CoOperation. You call a Victory. We just wanted to CoOperate.

I know that for a fact, because I was there in those years, what gorbio b wanted, what yells wanted. They didn't want war with the united states, nor were they saying we're defeated. They were saying, we just want to CoOperate.

We want to stop the cold war. We want to become part of a world economy. We want to be Normal economy.

We want to be Normal society, connected with you, connected with europe, connected with asia. In the u. Said, we get IT.

We get that. We want you do everything we say, and we determine how the pieces are gonna. So in the early two thousands, putin comes in first.

First business for putin was good CoOperation with the europe. Here you go back to the early two thousands again. I know the people I watched closely, I was a participant in, some of the burden was completely through europe.

Yes, the and pro us, by the way. And and we don't want to talk about this. We don't want to admit IT because we don't want anything other than unprovoked.

So everything is phony. What we say, everything is a lie. But just to say, the U.

S. Kept doing unattentive things that were really outrageous in two thousand. In in nineteen ninety nine, we bomb belgrade for seventy eight days. Bad move, absolutely. We bombed a capital of europe for seventy eight.

What was looking back, what was the .

point of the point of that was to break servia into create a new state, kosovo, where we have the largest nato military base in south east europe. We put bond steel base there because we wanted a base in southeastern europe. And again, you look at the neocons, it's nice of them.

They actually describe all of this in various documents. You have to make the links, but in a document called, uh, uh, rebuilding america's defenses in the year two thousand, they say the belkin is a new strategic area for the us. So we have to move large troops to the belkin because their idea is literally the game of risk.

Not just you need good relations or peace, we need our pieces on the board. We need military base es with the, with the advanced positioning of our military everywhere in the world. So they wanted a big base in a in south eastern europe.

They didn't like serbia. Serbia was close to russia anyway, where the sole superpower, we do what we want. So they divided the country, which they now claim you never do.

You know, you never change borders. We broke part serbia, established by our declaration, a new country cause of all. We put a huge nato base there. And that was the goal. So that was nothing.

I wasn't to save the oppressed .

muslim population.

IT wasn't to save the oppressed .

muslim is very much too, was saved. The military industrial complex, to have a nice location in southeast, in europe.

killed all those people like the city.

You know, IT was a little bit sad, but we do lots of sad things and lots of destructive things, lots of wars were the country of perpetual, or we don't look back. We're not even supposed to talk about this because this was unprovoked to remember. So in two thousand to the U.

S. Unilaterally pulled out of the antibodies c missile treaty naterally. Well, that was one of the stabilizers of the relationship with russian was one of the stabilizers of the the global nuclear h situation, which is absolutely dangerous.

And the U. S. Unatoned started putting ages missiles into first, poland and romania. And the russians are, say, wait a minute, what do we know you're putting in this a few minutes from moscow? This is completely destabilizing.

Do you think you might want to talk to us? So then comes two thousand, four, seven more countries in nato, livia, lithuania, estonia, romania, bulgarian, slovakian, slovak, ia. Now starting filling in the black sea, remaining in bugera. Suddenly there are now north atlantic countries. But it's all part of this design, all spelled out, all quite explicit, or surrounding russia.

In two thousand and seven, president putin gave a very clear speech at the munich security conference, very powerful, very correct, very frustrated, where he said, uh, gentleman, uh, you told us in nineteen and ninety nato would never enlarge. That was the promise made to president orbit shop, and IT was the promise made to president yells and you IT and you repeatedly cheated and you don't even admit that you said this. But it's all plainly documented, by the way.

And as you know, in a thousand archive site. So it's easy to to verify all of this. James Baker, the third our secretary states, said that nato would not move one inch eastward.

And IT wasn't a flippant statement. There was a statement repeated and repeated and repeated hands. Hans tenure, the a foreign minister of germany, same story.

The german wanted reunification, corbit chavez said, will support that, but we don't want that to come at our expense. No, no. IT won't come your expense.

Nato won't move one inch eastward, mr. President, repeated so many times in many documents, many statements by the nato secretary general, by the U. S.

Secretary of state, by, uh, the german chancellor. Now, of course, all denied by our foreign policy blob, because we're not supposed to remember anything. Remember, this was all unprovoked.

So back to two thousand seven, putin gives the speech and he says, stop. Don't even think about ukraine. This is our two thousand one hundred kilometer border.

This is absolutely part of the integrated economy of this region. Don't even think about IT now. I know from insiders, from all the diplomatic work that I do, that europe was saying to the U.

S. European leaders, don't think about ukraine, please. You know, this is not a good idea. Just stop. We know from our current CIA director, bill burns, uh, that he wrote a very eloquent, uh impassion uh articulate, clear secret as usual memo, uh, which we only got to see because the week leaks showed to the american people.

Maybe we would like to know once in a while, but we're never what are governments doing, what they're doing and how they're putting us at nuclear risk and other things. Okay, this one did get out and it's called neet means yet. No means no is and what what bill burns very perceptively articulately conveys the kindest.

And back to the White house in two thousand eight is ukraine is really a red line. Don't do IT. It's not as putin, it's not just putin's government, is the entire political class of russia.

And just to help all of us, as we think about IT, IT is exactly as if mexico said we think would be great to have chinese military bases on the real grand. We can see why the U. S.

Would have any problem with that. Um of course we would go completely insane. But when we should and we shared, of course, it's the whole idea is so absurdly dangerous and reckless that you you can even imagine grown ups doing this. So what happens is the forward, i'm told, by european leaders and by long, detailed discussion. Bush junior says to them, no, no, no, it's okay. Don't don't the don't worry, I hear you about ukraine and then he goes off for the Christmas holidays and comes back, whether it's chinese, whether it's push, whatever IT is, says, yeah, nato is going to win large to ukraine and the europeans are shocked, pissed. What are you doing?

You may have come to the obvious ous conclusion that the real debate is not between republican and democrats, socialists, capitalists, right? laugh. The real battles train people who are lying on purpose and people who are trying to tell you the truth.

It's between good and evil. It's between honesty and fault od, and we hope we are on the former side. That's why we created this network, a tucker crossing network, and we invite you to subscribe to IT you go to tucker crosson n dock com flash podcast entire archive.

Is there a lot of behind the scenes footage of what actually happens in this born when only an iphone is running tucker carlson duck com slash podcast? You will not regret IT. So bush did not make that decision.

Push did not make the decision.

right? I mean, it's um if i'm hear what .

i'm saying yeah no push did make the OK but no what i'm saying is he had told the europeans I hear you are not going .

to do IT but IT sounds like he was influenced the people around him know .

that could be or I don't know whether C I A or whether someone explained to him or whether someone said, George, president uh this is a long standing project you know it's not something for uh, european country to object to.

I don't know what happened there, but what I do know is that he came back and told the european leaders know we're doing IT they said, no, no, no, no, we're not doing IT and then they had the nato summit in book arrest, and this was two thousand eight. And the europeans, uh, transformer, go, uh, french president, all of them, George, don't do this. Don't do this.

This is extraordinary. R Y dangerous. This is really provocative.

We don't really need or want nato right up to the russian border. Bush, pushed, pushed, pushed. This is A U.

S. Alliance fundamentally. And they made the commitment. Ukraine will become a member of nato. The dodge was okay.

We won't give them exactly the road map right now, but ukraine will become a member of nato because in those days the U. S. And russia met in a nato partnership.

Even then putin was there the next day in buk. Arrest, saying, don't do this. This is completely reckless.

Essentially, this is our fundamental red line. Do not do this. The U. S. Can hear any of this.

This is our biggest problem of all, because the neocons who have run the show for thirty years believe the us. Can do whatever he wants. This is the most fundamental point to understand about U.

S. Foreign policy. They're wrong. They keeps growing up. They keep getting us into trillion dollar plus wars. They can keep killing a lot of people.

But their basic belief is the us is the only superpower. It's the unipolar power. And we can do what we want.

So they could not hear putin even that moment. They couldn't hear the rest of the europeans. And by the way, they said georgia would become part of nature again.

The only way to understand that is in this long standing, palmer's in region ski, yes, theory, this is in just half hazard. Oh, why don't we take georgia? This is a plan.

okay? The russians understand every single step of this. So another thing goes, right? What goes around? The ukraine is don't want nato enlargement. The ukrainians don't want IT. They are against IT the public opinion said, no, this is very dangerous neutrality, it's safer, were in between east and west.

We don't want this so they elect Victorian coverage yeah a president that says will just be neutral and that's absolutely the us is oh, what the hell is ukraine? They don't have any choice either. So yana coverage becomes the enemy of the neocons, obviously.

So they start working, of course, the way that the us. does. We ve got to get rid of this guy ah maybe will elect his opponent afterwards, maybe will catch him in a crisis and so forth.

And indeed, at the end of twenty thirteen, the U. S. Absolutely stokes a crisis that becomes an interaction and then becomes a cool. And I know again, from first hand experience, the us. Was profoundness implicated in that. But you can see our senators standing up in the crowd, like if chinese officials came to january six and said, yes, yes, go know.

How would we like if chinese leaders came and said, yeah, we were with you one hundred percent american senators standing up in k, saying to the demonstrators were with you one hundred percent Victoria nuland famously passing around the cookies, but IT was much, much more than the cookies I can tell you. And so the us. Inspired with a ukrainian right to overthrow ghana.

O which, and there was a violent overthrow in the third week of february of twenty fourteen. That's when this war started. This war didn't even start in twenty twenty two, had started in twenty fourteen.

That was the outbreak of the war was a violent that over through a ukrainian president that wanted neutrality when he was violently overthrown and his security people told him, you're going to a get killed. And so he flew to heart cave and then flew onward to russia. That day, the us, immediately in a nanosecond, recognized the new government.

This is a cool. This is how the CIA does its regime change Operations. So this is when the war starts. Putin's understanding, completely correct in this moment, was i'm not letting nato take my naive al fleet and my naive al base in crimea.

Are you kidding? The russian naval base in the black sea, which was the object of the crimean war, yes, in its way, is the object of this war in sevastopol has been there in seventeen eighty three. And now putin saying, nails gona walk in.

how? no. And so they organize this referendum of the, this is a russian region, and there's an overwhelming support. We will stay with russia. Thank you.

Not with this new post co government, an outbreak, a breaks out in the eastern provinces, which are the ethnic russian provinces uh in the doe bus, in the don't bus in lugano and donor yc, and there's a lot of violence. So the war starts in twenty fourteen. So saying something thing is unprovoked in twenty twenty two is a little bizarre for anyone that actually reads a Normal newspaper to begin with.

But in any event, the war starts then. And within a year, the russians are saying, very wisely, we actually don't want this war. We don't want to own ukraine.

We don't want problems on our border. We would like peace based on respect for the ethnic russians in the east and political autonomy, because you, the cool government. Tried to close down all russian language, culture uh, and rights of these people after having made a violent cool.

So we don't accept that. So what came out of that was two agreements called the minsk one and the minsk two agreement. The minsk agreement was backed by the U.

N. Security council, and IT said that will make peace based on autonomy of the dome bas region. Now, very interesting. The russians were not saying, that's ours. We want that.

All the things that are claimed every day, that putting just wants to recreate, you know, he thinks his Peter the great tea wants to recreate the russian empire. E, he wants to grab territory. Nothing like that.

The opposite. We don't want the territory. We actually just want economy based on an agreement reached with the ukraine in government.

So what was the U. S. Attitude towards that? U. S. Government attitude. U. S.

Government attitude was to say to the ukrainians, don't worry about IT. Come on. Don't worry about IT.

You keep your central state. We don't want to see ukraine weakened at all. We just want to nato in a unified ukraine, don't go for decentralized.

We tell them to blow off the very treaty that they've signed. Then we accuse russia not having diplomacy, by the way, which is, you know, power for the course, so you can trust them. We blow off every single agreement.

We blow off, not moving one inch eastward. We blow off the anti ballistic missile treaty. Uh, we have so many uh nato LED wars of choice in between. I didn't even mentioned in syria, C I, A attempt to overthrow assad in libya and so forth. And we blow off the minsk agreements.

And actually, Angela merkel explained rather shockingly Frank interview that he gave last year when asked why germany didn't help to enforce the minsk agreement because germany and france were the grantors of the minds agreement under something called the Normal SHE said, well, we just thought this was to give some time to the ukrainians to build up their strength in other words, they were guarantors of something in a phony way and the us. Was, uh, absolutely lying about this and I know senior ukrainians who were in government and who are around the government who said to make jeff, we're not gonna do that anyway. That was a gunpoint if we don't have to agree with that.

So all that diplomacy was blown off. The war continued. The U. S. pumpin. Arms built up.

Armaments was building up what would be the biggest army of europe, actually, uh, a huge army. Uh, that russia was watching. What are you doing? You know, you're not honoring mins. You're building up this huge ukrainian army paid .

for by nato.

paid for by the united states. basically. yes. And in twenty twenty one, putin met with biden.

And then after the meeting, he put on the table a draft russia U. S. Security agreement put in on the table on december fifteen, twenty twenty one.

It's worth reading very plausible document. I don't agree with some of IT. It's it's negotiable document, something you would not negotiate. I thought the core of IT was stopped, the nato enlargement.

And, uh, I call the White house myself at that point and said, don't have a war over this who you talk to, I talk to jake olivine and I said, don't have a war over this. Uh, we don't need nature enlargement for U. S.

security. In fact, it's counter to U. S. security. The us.

Should not be right up against the russian border. And how we trip ourselves into a world or three. No jef.

Don't worry, no worry. Those not going to be a war. Don't worry, we've got a diplomatic approaches that, jack, this is a basis for diplomacy, negotiate. Well, the formal response of the united states is that issues about nato are the go, 是 不 there only between nature countries and nature candidates。 No third party has any stake or interest or saying this, russia is completely irrevelant.

To use the analogy, you know, if mexico and china want to put chinese military bases on the real grand dn, the states has no right to interfere and no intel. No interesting in nobile lab. And this was the formal us response in january twenty, twenty two, so unprovoked, not exactly thirty years of provocation, where we could not take peace for an answer one moment. All we could take is we will do whatever we want, wherever we want. And no one has any say in this at all.

So lets go back twelve, twelve. I get twenty two years. Putin told me and I checked.

I think it's true that he, in clint final days, asked clinton if russia could join nato, which seems almost by definition like a Victory. Yeah, nato exists a book against russia. Russia wants to join the alliance.

They know one right. Why would? Why would the U. S. Government have turned that offer down? And do you think that was that israel.

russia and actually europe wanted IT used to want before europe was completely a kind of vessel. Programs of the united states. Government wanted what they call collective security, which was, we want security arrangements in which one country security doesn't ruin the security of another country.

And there were two pads, s to that. There basically three paths, let's say, one path was what they call the O S. C.

E. The organization of security and CoOperation in europe really a good idea. IT was its western europe, central european, stern europe and former soviet union.

And the idea was, let's bring us all together under one kind of charter and will work out a collective security rangement. I like that. And this is what corbo trouble was saying.

We don't want war with you. We don't want conflict with you. We want collective security.

Second arrangement, that actually makes a lot of sense. But people say this guy out of his mind. But IT actually makes a lot of sense.

Gorbachev disbanded the war sop packed. We should have disbanded. Nato said nato was there to defend against a soviet invasion.

There's not gonna any soviet invasion. In fact, after december nineteen ninety one, there's not even the soviet union. We don't need nato.

Why is there nato? Nato was established to defend against the soviet union, right? So why did IT continue after gorbachev and yellow? The neocons, thankfully.

Thank you. Read the document. All exploit IT. This is our way of keeping our hyg amani in europe.

Another words, this is our way of keeping our say in europe, not protecting europe, not even protecting us. This is hegemony. We need our pieces on the board. Dats our .

pieces. Why would germany allow foreign troops garden arson on its soil for eight year? I don't understand. Why would in country allow that? Would you want foreign roofs in our town?

Talker, when went, when you had your wonderful interview with putin, he answered everything, except once you ask them, what are the germans seeing in this? And putin said, I don't get IT and I thought, oh my god, thank you. I don't get IT .

that if he is broken by war guilt as a massive .

I an onest ly, it's not massage. M, it's not war guilt. There is, there are basic mechanisms, uh, that I don't understand truly, after being around more than forty years in this, knowing all the leaders and I know shells and I know others, I don't understand IT.

But when the us. Has a military base in your country, IT really pulls a lot of the political strings in your country IT really influences the political parties. IT really pays. I know it's i'm naive, you know. In other words, the germans are not they're not free actors in this.

That's the point. If men with guns up in your apartment in new york and just camped out there, you probably wouldn't really be the head of your household anymore, would you?

It's probably true. But you your question of why would the germans want this? It's the same question of after the us.

Blew up the north stream pipeline, why won't the germans have said before or after? Why did you do that? This is our economy.

You just blew up, but they don't. And so there's so subservient to the U. S. Interest, it's a little hard understand because that makes no sense for europe. But like you said, you know, there are some people in your house maybe that's the bottom line.

I've spoken to european leaders who have said to me, I can't quote IT because it's so shocking and I won't quote IT because I was said confidentially, but basically they don't take us seriously in washington and I said, yes, I didn't say was the bubble over my head speaking to a european and later but maybe if you pushed a little bit, you could be you would be taken more seriously, not in this way of just defeat. But I was said to me in such a sad way, I just felt, oh, good. Don't tell me that you're a leader of in europe.

but we're occupying their country with soldiers and guns. How could we take them seriously? There are a bitch. I mean, honestly.

no, I don't know. It's really sad. And it's it's doing a lot of damage to its it's doing huge damage europe.

It's destroying ukraine, by the way, that's the course first point. It's destroying ukraine, doing a lot of damage to to europe. It's wasting a have a lot of lives and money.

A in the united states, which the neukum don't count. And almost nobody stands up and talks about IT. And your first question about being unprovoked, we even have a story about IT.

It's the story's complete bull h it's complete nonsense for people who don't want, don't remember, don't want to remember, uh, anything before february twenty forth, twenty twenty two. But there's a whole long history to. This is absolutely a kind of absurd and tragic.

I mean, it's it's absurd. It's uteri tragic. Five hundred thousand ukrainians dead for nothing.

Do you think that's the number?

That's probably the number. Yeah, that's the best number that I know.

I mean, we talked to us in dinner, but one of the most shocking things, just washington to me is if you ask any of the senators for, as I have, who voted to keep this work going with U. S. Tax tors, how many of your beloved ukrainians have been killed? They have no idea.

They're no interest knowing, and they don't care at all. And sometimes they say they don't care. I made, romney said that you its greatest bargain, no american lives a dick blueman all said the same thing, basically, this is a great in no american .

lives that evil. I mean, it's point certainly. But critic, they are telling us we're doing this for ukraine, for our friends in ukraine, the standard bears for democracy. But also, don't you have an obligation to kind of care about the people you kill?

I think so. You think so. Uh, I think the americans think so.

Uh, I don't think that the security April atis think so um because the security state, you know you're got to be tough to play back in a risk. Uh, you've got ta know is they're gonna some clatter al losses. So some.

We millions of people have died in american wars of choice. Uh, but if you're big boy, you can't let that deter you. So I think it's pretty deeply in grain that a few hundred thousand lives here and there. Come on, we're talking about who runs the world. After all.

it's really.

really dark. I think it's extraordinary reckless just .

to circle back. But also look, if the pretext for all of this is some sort of moral authority were for democracy there for thorarin.

This has nothing to do with morality. This has nothing to do with morality, has nothing to do with western values, that nothing to do with american values. IT doesn't even have to do with the american interest, from what I can see.

Although IT says that they say that american interest at stake, what we've spent maybe seven trillion dollars on these reckless perpetual wars since two thousand, one is that really we've added to the debt. Uh, the death gone from, uh, about thirty percent of national income to more than one hundred percent of national income. We've had these disastrous wars.

Is this america's interested? No, I mean, maybe we could have actually we build a bridger a road along the way. You're even at A A mile of fast rail in our country is something.

But no, we had to spend trillion and trillions on wars. So to my mind, it's all completely perverse. But what I find amazing is that once in a while you have to look, but once in a while you'll actually find the truth expressed in such a logger way.

No, they don't count the ukrainian lives. They literally say no american lives. We're not even so sure about that, by the way. But it's not it's not not a large number, but it's it's some, but they don't tell us the truth about that either.

Down junior here guys, are you receiving letters from the IOS claiming you go back taxes as penalties and interest fees piled up? The IOS gives, you know, clear path to resolution. Don't speak to them on your own.

They are not your friends to reach a team of license tax professionals that going to help you reduce, sell and resolve your tax matters, go to T N U S A that com and check out, solve your tax problems today one hundred seven eight zero eight eight eight eight or visit N U S A 点 com。 That's one 一场， zero eight eight eight eight. You've been prescribed medication for B, P, H, or in largest prostate.

You don't like the idea of a daily medication for the rest of your life. If you have to take IT forever is IT really worth IT. But that's what the doctor ordered in symptoms from B, P.

H. We're negatively impacting your life. A week flow, an urgent need to go erupted, sleep. Now you feel stuck between medications that aren't really doing the trick and the idea of invasive surgery.

There may be another option, a minimum invasive procedure covered by most insurance called the year live system. The year live system may provide up to three times the symptom relief as a common B P H medication. Based on early data. From my head to head study, men forty five and over go to no B P H meds dot com to learn more and find a year oef system trained doctor near you. Most common side of extra temporary can include this front urgency, inability to control pain.

some blood in the urine, rare set of including bleeding and infection may lead to a serious outcome and .

may require intervention. The minimum invasive your live system go to no PH mds dot com. So just a circle back to the provocation .

I watch is a complete non expert um the administration send the vice president to the municipal current conference in february of twenty two when IT was clear that things were getting really hot and watch commonly hera safe too zeeland ky, on camera, we want you to join nato when everybody, even me, a talk show who knew that that was the red line for putin. So the only conclusion I could reach was they want him to move across the border. And you cant they want a war?

What does your take talker just say til this moment, every senior official in the us. Or the the secretary general of nato install ton Brooks says ukraine will join nato. And one thing everyone that listening should understand, ukraine will never join nato short of a nuclear award. So because russia will never allow IT period. So every time we say IT, all we mean is the war continues and more ukrainians are destroyed .

and we're willing to rest .

nuclear conflict. And some people definitely are because their idiots, really, because that my resent that gets very high when we reach that level. But we here talk about nuclear war these days.

We hear we're not going to be blackmailed by this nuclear thread and so forth. Well, god damad, you'd Better be worried. We're talking about a counterpart that has six thousand nuclear warheads.

We have six thousand nuclear warheads. We have a lot of crazy people on our government. I know if i'm adult enough to know over forty four years of the professional life that there are a lot of contemporary people in our country.

We have a lot of allies that say, uh, we can do this. We have a president of livia tweet or xing, or whatever the verb is these days. Russia, the enda.

Ask another words. Russia must be destroyed. Playing off of the, the old, the cato, the elder cartel, delenda s.

Cartage must be destroyed. Honestly, a president of a baltic state tween that russia must be destroyed. This is prudent.

This is safe. This is gonna. Keep your family, my family, safe 而 无益， out of our minds.

And all through this, biden hasn't called to one time. And I speak to very senior russian officials. You speak to the most senior russian officials.

They say, we want to negotiate. Of course we will talk. The lsc I E quote and quote made IT illegal.

And the united states says, well, we won't do anything that the ukrainians don't want. This is insane, by the way, as if this is really between ukraine and russia. This about the united states and russia.

This everybody should understand. This is an even about ukraine and russia. This is about the U.

S. Being in ukraine and russia. So the ones that need to talk are biden and putin, period.

And I keep saying, if I may say, IT again just now, I keep saying to bind, if you want to use my zoo m account, please use IT. I'll let you my phone, you make the call, start negotiations. I don't like my family being at risk of nuclear war.

Why won't they?

Because they believed up until now, I, they can't quite believe in now. They believed up until now that they would get their way to bluff or superiority of force, or superiority of finance. They gambled because they were gambling with someone else's lives, someone else's country, and someone else is money, our money, the taxpayer of money.

But they were gambling, not with their own stakes, but they were gambling. They're not very clever. They gambled wrong all along. Putin said, no, for us, this is existential. For you, it's a game, parents, the game of risk.

You need your peace on that board as if american nato forces in ukraine is somehow existential for the united states, as opposed to a neutral ukraine. And they thought that they would get their way. And I spoke with senior officials all along who just thought russia won't object, or can't object, or will be pushed outside, or will fault with knees with U.

S. Financial unctions, or will succumb the us. High mars. And attack comes just one absolutely knife idea after another. But you might ask me, how can they have such naive idea? Well, that was my question.

Yes, and i'm sorry to put words in your mouth, but I would say, well, i'm old enough to remember via now i'm old enough to remember trying to overthrow bh all assad and trying to am old enough to remember libby, i'm old enough to remember afghanistan. We screw up non stop. This is not clever what we're doing. But the people were so interesting.

So you've been an academic your whole life. You think you are the Youngest tenure professors at harvard, but you've also been, I think you uniquely a diplomat, a on and off mostly on for you know, decades. So you know the people who are making us foreign icy personally well and the quality of the person engaged that seems to have declined to dramatic. I think that's true.

by the way. I think it's true in general of american politics. Maybe it's an illusion, but when I was a kid in college, I, uh uh I I did my summer internships, are in my senators office.

Senator, feel heart. And he was a man of a great integrity, of great intelligence. Cy was a democratic ity had lots of republican friends and colleagues.

There were big people uh there uh and they were serious people to fulbright uh h and a Frank church, really wonderful, impressive people chuck percy luger and be really impressive people who wanted the us. To do right, to do good. And I admire them.

And IT was on both sides of republican, democrat. And you feel it's it's not like that right now. It's really not like that right now. And I don't see IT.

I don't see White people on either side. I hate to say that I don't think it's a partisan divide. They all seem crazy and dumb to me.

You know, we've WeChat the Randalls. So the the only one for me that makes sense on foreign policy right now, yes, stop this sticks so many dam wars, it's putting us at incredible risk. good.

But you don't hear the democrats, they line up one hundred percent for more military spending, continue the war. We have people that completely shock me that are saying these stupid things about, uh, no, us lives as if ukrainian lives don't matter. Nobody wants to talk about negotiation. No one says anything honest. No one calls.

No one even wants the truth out of the White house saw executive branch, which is another role of congress, which is don't take us for a ride or an independent, uh separate, equal part of government and IT used to be that congress kind of resented when the executive branch lie to IT. Yes, you don't see that the lives, then you don't see that resentment. You see partisanship.

If it's a republican president, then the democrats go after. If it's a democrats president, republicans. But nobody from one's own party even tells their president stop bullshitting us. Yes, and that's very serious.

Well, these are not small lies. So the two of the biggest lies are that ukraine can win, whatever that means, never to find, push russia back to its january twenty two and two border and two, that ukraine will join nato and not one of those things is true.

They're not only not true if you are able to watch uh you or someone outside the mainstream IT becomes obvious that these are true but if you follow uh animal curb a and the White house, every a lying with the smirk on his face, which I can't stand because he can't even control his mark because he tells us i'm lying, you know, he's talking, it's unreal a but if you or if you read the new york times, which is sad, pathetic, uh, you won't know.

But if you actually listen to any independent outlets at which I do, because i'm travelling in the world most of the time, actually not in the us, you know that these things are obvious. Someone asked me a couple days ago, ukraine getting ah it's getting basted on the battlefield now some days are one thousand five hundred dead, typical one thousand dead. Russia has air superiority, artillery superiority, missile superiority, everything and the ukrainians are getting blasted and now the U.

S. Presses reporting the ukrainians, are you falling back and and the tone has suddenly changed so someone asked me a couple days ago, you know, why did this sudden change on the battle field occur? And I said that, excuse me, I said, yeah, why did the sudden change? Is that there's no sudden change. This whole trend has been obvious for more than two years, were in a war of attrition, an and the bigger parties from last and how lot of this much bigger party but you wouldn't know IT by any of our narrative official congressional uh, or our kind of mainstream media because they don't tell the truth until i'd say until but even after it's staring you in the face, then maybe we'll say something that's a little bit true. That just feels .

like north korea in mor. What you imagine, north korea is this news vacuum where everybody is under these huge miss impressions, like nobody has any reference point in the truth at all. People don't even know their being like to you travel constantly. Is this the most sort of cut off country from an information perspective in the world?

You know, when a i'll give an example, when a the U. S. Put on sanctions on russia in march twenty twenty two, just after a the beginning of this latest phase of the war that started to twenty fourteen.

Um I know senior U. S. Financial officials and we've onta crush them, and I don't think so.

No, I was in that amErica last week. They're not going to do this. I was in india the week before that. It's not going to go like that.

So what happened was the only ones that applied the sanctions are europe, the united states and a few allies in the asia, japan, korea, australia and new zealand, singapore. The rest of the world said we're not part of that. You know this yes, we don't sign up to this.

We don't like this. We don't agree with the nato and large gem. We don't like this narrative.

And the sanctions proved to be pretty, uh, useless uh h compared to what this grandiosity of the U. S. Strategic thought.

So IT comes to this question, you know, what is the rest of the world think? The rest of the world doesn't think much of the united states. What is doing this seems to them, is a bizarre country.

Why are you pushing nature enlargement? Why are you bringing us into your war? We don't really want this. Interestingly, most of the rest of the world is not against the united states, by the way. Is that just don't make us choose all these things.

This isn't our battle, and we don't even like what you do and just make peace, calm things down. And we we don't want bad relations. So it's not as if the world's, but washington does not get this at all.

I i'd probably speak to more world. I don't know. I speak to a lot of world leaders in developing countries all the time.

It's my job is development economists. So i'm talking to world leaders, foreign isters had the state and so on. And I know they are understanding and position very clearly. I don't know whether the White house or blinking or anyone else in administration understands even these basic points, but I was obvious to me, obvious to me. I A little bit not not, well.

IT seems from the outside IT seems like blinking as a driving force.

I doubt IT. What do you think is, uh, I think this a big, deep project with of the security apparatus that goes back thirty years. I think the CIA continues to be a driving force.

I don't know h national current councils obviously driving force the pentagon, obviously you driving force ah the armed services committee. It's not the one individual, but it's a project that is long dated and IT doesn't turn and we don't ever president that's very flexible in mind. We don't ever president.

yes. You know, on top of any of this, that seems to me not a nib president, not liable, not effective, not necessarily in charge, not necessarily making decisions, I don't really know. But what I do know is that it's not improve.

It's A A rudder that stuck. I would say other words, they can't do something different. And each what what is improved is that the last thing they try didn't.

So now they need to quickly improvise something else as the rutter is stocks. So we continue on the same destructive path and it's not working. So oh my god, we've got to do something else. That's the improved part.

But what is not changing is goals, direction, right? Strategy or this most basic point, which for me is a kind of a IT sounds so simple minded but I actually from a lifetime of experience really believe in IT. We don't talk to the other side.

We also seem to be um healing our own gas a bit, believing our own .

lives we we believe that we need to lie to because maybe if your rotters stuck and you're the skipper, you have to say full speed ahead. Other words, if you can't move the you have to give some self justification for why we continue to.

For example, since you are an economist, the economic effects of kicking russia, swift ted, of these very serious sanctions imposed against russia two and a few years ago, big picture IT seems like that's a country with an economy based on natural resources in manufacturing. R is largely an economy based on finance, lending money interest in real state, which is more durable, which is more real. That's I that's my perspective. what?

Well, I think the basic point on the sanctions is if you have oil, if you don't salt eur, you can so yeah, and I wasn't so hard and they figured that out. I know that figured out how to get those tankers in. They ve figured out how to get insurance cover and they figured out how to do.

They're making a lot of money in the sanctions didn't have any effect and what they also didn't understand. And I think it's it's also important for people understand in all of this new on strategizing, they had this climate of insight. And actually big bridge in ski was was very good on IT.

He said, by all means, the one thing never never to do is to drive russia in china together, exactly. And he said, very explicit. And he says, in nineteen ninety seven, and in his book, the grand chessboard, I think it's called, he says, but this is so unlikely, this would be so crazy to do, and this is exactly what these dunder heads have done. Hills dell college offers .

many great free online courses, including a recent one on marxism, socialism and communism. Today, marxism goes by different names .

to make itself seem less dangerous. Names like critical race theory.

gender theory and zh. No matter the names, this online core shows its the same marxism that works to destroy private property and that will lead to famines. Show trials and guilds start learning online for free at tucker for hills dale outcome.

That's tucker F O R hills dale dot com. For over fifty years, billingtons legacy has been great deals on coats for all weather conditions. So before you caught unprepared for the winter weather had to burlington for name, brands, quality items and surprising fits for every family member.

Sock up on coat sweaters and accessories before the cold hits, so you can finally stop avoiding the elements and start living comfortably warm up at your near springton location, less than one mile away. Billington deals friends, wow. Who are the neocon? So how would you describe that? What is a neocon?

A neocon is A A group of true believers starting that really rose to a force in the last years of the bush senior. A IT was chinese war for its a rums filled, uh, but IT became absolutely bipartisan. Victoria newland is kind of the ultimate her husband taken, uh, is a kind of the public intellectual .

of the newcomes.

I mean, he is he, is he the guy that write the tomes? Child, I think that this has been just about the most disasters for ign policy imaginable. How can you go from uh from peace, uh, in the nineteen ninety one when you have a chance for creating A A peaceful CoOperative world that could actually be prosperous and h do good things together to this mess that we're in.

IT took a strategy so stupid, so reckless, so blind, uh, and that's what the new kings gave us. They gave us this strategy, which said that we now run the world and explicit, we will be the world's placement. We will fight the war that we need to fight.

Whenever and wherever we need to fight them. We will make sure that there's never arrival. Well, you do that long enough.

You end up in lots of absolutely destructive, stupid wars. And the rest of the world doesn't just sit back and say thank you. Us were so grateful you're the leader.

They say, come on where you know your four point one percent of the world population there's another ninety five point nine percent of the world population that actually would just like peace and some CoOperation and not you to be telling us what to do so this strategy was explicit, clear, adopted in the last years of uh, basically in nineteen ninety one ninety two uh, after the soviet union was a dissolved in december one thousand nine hundred ninety one. Clinton was is just not serious consequent h or experienced enough he wasn't to rigid neo can, but madeleine albright was a true believer, and clinton drifted in that direction. And that's also partly something to understand, which is when you have the biggest military machine in the world, when you are so powerful, the war machine is always breathing.

There's always some case for war. The neocons basically said, yeah, we were the policeman, were the constabulary. We, this is our duty.

We and so you have to, you have to be in each of these conflicts because, you know, U. S. Reputation also depends on this.

So they invited regional wars and everywhere and all the time, and believed, of course, you, we could clean out governments. We didn't want regime change by war, by covered Operations and so on. And IT became not a little movement.

IT became the dominant drive. So clinton kind of drifted. His administration was divided between metal and Operate and hoover on one side, William I on the other side. But he went with with. All right, by the end of clinton term was nato enlargement, bombing of belgrade and and we were kind of off to the races.

Then came, uh, bush junior, nine eleven, global war on terror, but basically nine eleven as the opportunity to implement the project for the new american century, which is the document that defines the neocon agenda. And IT is such an interesting document because very clear, I was very carefully studied and it's also important understand the the U. S.

Is a big shift so IT doesn't turn quick so you prepare a path or it's the stock rutter, as I said, and you can read in building, rebuilding america's defenses, which was a kind of campaign document for the incoming push, uh, junior administration, what we should do and IT defines this newton agenda. So bush junior introduced all of these things, the unitary al. Withdraw from a bm, the the war in iraq, uh, the expansion of nato to seven more countries, the commitment to expand nato to ukraine and georgia.

Then comes obama. You you don't think of him as uh, a neo can especially but who becomes the point person for eastern europe and uh and and ukraine Victoria land, so so interesting. Victoria nuland was the deputy national security adviser of chinese.

I remember very well.

yes. So SHE was chinese advisor. Then SHE was a, uh he was George w. Uh uh, ambassador to nato during the commitment to enlargement. And if obama warned, uh uh, a neocon, you would say, well, that's not someone i'm going to hire but all the sun sheet lands as Hillary, uh, as Hillary assistant now hillery is absolutely neocon to the core and there is Victoria news london SHE goes from being hiller's assistance to becoming assistant secretary of state for european and affairs and becomes the point person in the overthrown of yana coverage uh at the end of twenty thirteen and early twenty fourteen.

And obama is not you know is also very inexperienced in for obviously no experience at all in foreign policy but he wasn't by nature a neocon. But but the system keeps you moving unless you're a president that knows how to keep a foot on the brakes. And we haven't had many presidents like that.

Uh, eyes and hour was one who knew how to put of his foot on the brakes because he really understood this system. A john Kennedy learned IT, but only after the bao pigs and probably was was killed by our government for a trying to keep us foot on the brakes. Uh, and there have not been many other occasions when presidents kept their foot on the brake.

So in two thousand and eleven, obama does the absolute neocon play of saying almost out of the blue, by the way, why don't we overthrow the Sharon, as said, serious president? Well, that's a little damn weird. But suddenly you started hearing a sad must go.

I was on morning joe. Uh, when that statement by Hillary was made in the joe scarboro looked at me and said, jeff, what do you think I say, oh, how are they gonna do that? That sounds like another pretty stupid idea.

And IT turned out that was two thousand eleven. We've had thirteen years of war in syria, hundreds of thousands dead. Destroy the country, of course, destroy the country.

And and whose president but share all set and the interestingly yeah I can tell you good. Yeah I can tell you in two thousand twelve, uh, the us. And know there there were protest.

There are things that we're going on in syria but but presidents said, okay, we will send in the CIA to overthrow a the government in syria and if anyone is wondering, we do this dozens of times, so don't have any illusion that this is unusual. IT is the job. The terms of reference of the CIA overthrow governments and other countries, I don't approve.

I think that leads to war, destruction. IT hasn't passed the putin notice that that's the job of the C. I.

A. So it's another reason he doesn't exactly want the U. S. On his border and so forth OK.

So we start a arming, uh, the ghaists if IT crazy things in syria. Yeah, I can say that I am just thinking, because and the U. S, as assad must go so a diplo, the U.

N, starts a diplomatic process to try to find peace, which is the job of the U. N. It's not to implement U.

S. Regime changes to try to find peace. So the U. S, uh, the U. N. Exceeds and getting all the parties to agree to a peace agreement, except one the U. S.

So the yes, so the idea that the, you know, you couldn't find peace, you couldn't find these all these different factions in syria, there was an agreement reached, but there was one obstacle to the agreement. And the obstacle was the U. S.

On the first day of disagreement, assad, and, uh, the response was, you know, why don't you have IT a process that will be in two years and election or three years IT don't overthrow the government the first day we have all this in place and obama, well, I don't know. Obama probably heard, but whatever said no. So that's why there was no agreement.

But what was the motive? Like why would you want to overthrow .

the very strange um i've never heard an absolute uh intelligent reason for this. Believe me their idea is we can do IT why not one argument was that the neocons had a list ah and this is actually what Wesley Clark was you know, nato supreme command in the end of the nineteen nineties. I know westly quite well, and he's also spoken about this.

He said the neocon's had a list that they were gona clear out in the two thousands, all of the governments aligned with the soviet union or with russia. Now syria has a, russia has a able base on the meditation. Ian, yeah.

And so assad is therefore an enemy h or not an enemy days. He doesn't rise to the level of being an enemy. Someone knows peace.

You can take off the board and put in your own piece, that's all. So the idea is incredible arrogance. They don't think, honest to god. I don't know whoever gave that order knew nothing about syria that I can guarantee you.

but the downstream .

effects of that, we're horrifying. Well.

unbelievable because so yeah.

but we probably created this is pretty directly because we funded jihad is all along the way that our story since nineteen seventy nine actually yeah so this goes back a long time. Um they don't they're not clever, they're not honest, they're not transparent. They are arrogant to the hilt and they don't talk anybody else, including to us, the american people, including to congress, including to counterparts in other countries.

And IT gets you into trouble when you're so flippant and flagrant. Because remember what was happening in syria? They did exactly the same thing in libya.

And you look at libya, they decided to take out kadosh. I why? No one really knows he was CoOperating .

with us at that point.

No one knows. Because some people say sarcodes, uh, that the the the kadosh I had contributed to psychosis campaign IT was A A personal one data. There are hundred theories.

The fact that there are hundred theories shows that the whole thing was bullshit. Ed, to use a technical diplomatic term, you cannot even know right now why. What you know is that they missed the U. N.

Security council resolution to protect the people of benghazi, to launch a months long nato ero bomb barrel of libya until they brought down the government, unleashed war in in africa for the next thirteen years until today, which is still roiling all of the countries of the region. They do these things because they can, because IT doesn't count. Maybe another theory, which is even a little maybe true, what difference is money is a business.

We're running a business. We're trying weapons. We're doing this. Maybe it's all success from somebody's point of view that you have all these wars going with this big military machine.

I don't know that that is a theory which is not completely dismissible, because what you can do, tucker, is look and say, my god, we had a geopolitical reason to do this. This was really part of american security. We really needed to overthrow assad.

We really needed to take out, get off, because if we didn't do that, something else, what happened? You can not even contact a crazy narrative exposed that explains that. So these are not deeply explicable facts.

but the pattern is, is, is recognized. But immediately here you have a country with unchAllenged, for a moment, unchAllenged power starting wars for not any obvious reason all over the world. Almost last time an empire did that.

you know, the british, that was the last time I think we learned everything from the british. They were a nonstop wars skirmishes. You know, when you're an empire and and if anyone still plays risk, I don't know.

I played sixty years ago, I have to admit. So I am not sure if people still play the game. But risk, you're trying to get your piece on every part of the board when you have your piece some place on the word.

If the neighboring spots are not yours, you Better have wars with them where they are going to take you out. And so every place becomes an object for war, because IT becomes next door to whatever you have, your basis, your concern and so on. So we have military bases in, I would say, eighty countries, probably something like that.

Of course, the count is not public. So people put together their own list. We have about seven hundred fifty military bases around the world. Each of those places has a neighborhood, uh, each of those places has the next door, which, oh, well, they're not we don't have a base there. We Better have a base there.

Uh, and so that's the logic, which is if you're at the outer end of this, well, you Better continue because otherwise your outer limit is that what we don't learn actually in is another analogy, which I found to be useful. The romans buy around one hundred ten A D uh, with hajric said, and and tragic okay, we've reached a good limit. yeah. And they stop trying to expand.

They they built to all.

I left IT there exactly, and they said they had, there was a war that I find analogy to ukraine. They had a war in germania, so called a east of the ryan, uh, in what is now germany, in nine A D A, which was a war of expansion by August s to tame the german tribes. And they lost that war, the war, the two ton burg forest, and they lost that war in nine and eighty.

They basically decided after that, not entirely. They didn't say, well, this is the end of the roman empire. They said, okay, we'll just leave germania.

Yeah, there are limits to our part, right? There limits. And that's fine.

Why don't we behave like that? We're not threatened by russia. We are not threatened by russia and ukraine.

Being neutral is not a threat to U. S. security.

It's builds U. S. Security, period. That's what I said to jake sovan.

It's not even a concession, jack. It's a benefit for us. Leave some space between you and them.

That's what we want, some space. So we don't have an accidental trip wire. That's the real logic of this world.

Give a little space. Yes, we don't have to be everywhere. We're not playing risk.

We're trying to run our lives. We're trying to keep our children safe. We're not trying to own every part of the world.

So be in increasing our risk. I I think the unstated but very clear objective of all of this is to kill putin and replace them and break up russia that that's my read on IT.

If you read even this project for a new american century, rebuilding america's defenses, IT says maybe russia will be decentralized into a european and russia, central asia, russia, a cyberia russia, they call IT and and a far russia. Uh, this is essentially what you're saying. They they talk there is even know some commissions in washington, d colonize and russia, there there.

Hope, the CIA hope ah, if they would ever tell us the truth about anything was a but they they don't get any this right. But there they are, thought probably in the deep, long term vision was after the soviet union fell. So too will russia disintegrated, will disintegrate along its ethnic lines, will disintegrate along its geographic lines.

Why is that A U. S. project. It's A U. S. Project only because from my point of view, the U. S.

Resent that there is a country of eleven time zones and it's so big that IT is a, on its face, a denial of U. S. Global hegemony. In other words, so how obnoxious of them to be there a because but the problem is they don't see IT that way.

But just if you're looking at this purely through the lens of what's good fruin U S interest, yes, do think is their jobs? Yes, chaos across eleven time zones and an innumerable ethnic groups and religious divisions with six thousand nuclear warheads that that's really a threat to the world. I could not agree more.

Is IT not?

Am I missing something?

So you're not missing anything? Uh and and the fact of the matter is I was an advisor to corbitant in nineteen ninety ninety one. I got to watch close up.

I was an advisor to president yells in nineteen ninety one, ninety, ninety two. I actually, it's literally true. As weird as this sounds, I well, maybe not to you.

You're about the one person for whom it's not weird. I SAT in the kremlin, uh, sitting across from yelling, the day the soviet union ended, really IT not even quite that day, literally. IT was even more remarkable and bizarre than that.

I was leading a little economics delegation to talk about the collapse, the economy that was underway, and yells came from the back of the room in one of these giant crumlin rooms, yes, and walk across the long room SAT down, right in front of me and said, gentlemen, I want to tell you, the soviet union is over. That's increase that. And then he pointed to the back door.

He said, do you know who is in that room over there? It's the leaders of the soviet military, and they have just agreed to the dissolution of the soviet union. And that was the first words I heard out of his mouth, sitting directly across from the, so what a moment that was, of course, the most unbelievable moment i've had.

And you're sitting in the travelin, and you hear that suddenly. And and then he went on to say, he spoke very beautifully for a few minutes. What does russia want? And he must have used the word Normal ten times in that short speech.

We want to be a Normal country. We're done with the communism. We, we want to be Normal.

We want to be friendly. We want to be part of europe. We want to be part of the world economy.

We want to be Normal. mr. Sex, can you help us be Normal? And I said, mr. President, um the world will be so grateful for this opportunity for peace that I am absolutely sure that the united states and the rest of the world is gonna come to your assistance.

And I said this most remarkably wrong fact, because I believed that, I knew that that was america's interest. I believed we would follow our interest. And I had had a very unusual experience, a wonderful experience, two years earlier, when I served as poll's main outside economic advisor, helping them to develop the plan for becoming a market economy and part of europe.

And in those days, I help pollen raise many billions of dollars of emergency support to stabilize a very shaky, unstable economy. And in those days, in one hundred and eighty nine, every everything I recommended was adopted by the united states government. Almost immediately I thought, hey, i'm pretty good.

I I once went in one morning to senator doll and I said, poland needs a billion dollars to stabilize its currency. And he, he said, mr. Sax, come back in an hour and I came back in an hour and there was brand scope raft and our national security advisor and said, so you know who this is? mr.

sex? I said, general, uh, it's an honor to meet you and sculco said, the what? What is IT? What's your idea? And I I handed in my one page about a billion dollars and he looked and you said, will this work mar sax? And I said, I think this is the right way to stabilize the currency so well will get back to you.

Uh, and at five P M uh as door asked me, uh I call doll and um he said tell your friends they have their billion dollars, within nine within eight hours basically OK so I said he elton， this will be great. You know you're gonna all the support. We're going to go mobilize a financial package for you.

We're going to help you stabilize the rubble. We're going to get a stabilization fund for the rule. We're going to get this and that. And of course, every single thing I recommended that had worked in poll and they elected in washington.

And I, just for the life of me, like, what the hell is going on here? stability? Ation fund IT worked. This wallet was stable.

The posh currency stability? No, mr. Sax, i'm afraid we don't support that. And one after another knocked down.

So I did not understand the geopolitics, yes, that I was I at all. I didn't get IT as, are you kidding? They want Normal.

They want peace. This is our greatest moment. This is the greatest moment of the second f of the twenty years century.

These charge of nuclear wars been lifted. The cold war over do something? No so so that's that's IT. Isn't the point of traveling to get away from at all, to feel the best you've ever felt?

Then maybe you should check out a ruby time, relaxing, uncool, White Sandy beaches in floating, in healing blue water, you, me, locals, bribing with gratitude for an island that redefines what a paradise can be when your trip comes to an end. You won't need another vacation because you just had the vacation. That's the robot effect.

Plan your trip at a ruby dot com. What do you make of putting he's very smart. He has a LED russia very effectively um and because he emerged from the K G B, he understands the us.

The way the U S. Operates because we became a security state. We became a state where the C, I, A has absolutely extraordinary influence, and putin gets that.

And so he really understands how we Operate. He doesn't like IT, but he understands IT and his background, especially because his background comes from the K. G.

B. His counterpart was the C. I. A. He does not have illusions about the united states. Uh, and I wish, I wish we were proving him wrong. what?

How influential is the C. A. In the Operations of the U. S. government?

definitely. In many, many places, IT is the instrument of regime change, and the us. Is the only country in the world that relies on regime change, as I would say, the lead diplomatic, let me put in a different way, not diplomatic as the lead foreign policy instrument.

Other worlds, most countries, virtually any small country, any middle wer country. When IT doesn't like another country, IT either has to deal with IT or IT comes begging to the united states to take out that country. And we are the country that uh makes a living by overthrowing other governments.

And that's not a good vocation for us. IT almost always ends in disaster, in bloodshed, in continued instability. But that's the job of the c.

That became its half job to C. I. C, I is also in intelligence agency. IT collects information, makes analysis, and that gives a, uh, intelligence findings. And I have no problem with that role at all, although I don't want him to spy on us, but I think that making the intelligence findings for the U. S. Government is uh is necessary um but being a private army or uh a uh a hidden force that overthrows governments that stokes unrest ah that puts people in power um that the runs a covert Operations so i'm against IT.

So if a big part of C A job is taking down leaders of foreign countries, how long before IT does that here in the united states? I mean that doesn't doesn't seem unlikely that like why wouldn't .

they do that here? Yeah probably sixty one years ago was the first to run at this with the president Kennedy from I think it's a best guess, not sure, but best guess that this was at least maybe rogue C I A or maybe official C I A, or maybe compartmentalise ed CIA Operation IT was clearly someone's Operation not the Harry oswalds for many all we know uh and all of the evidence points in that the that direction IT used to be said, why is the states the only country in the world that never had a cool ah and the answer was, well, or the only country that doesn't have A U S. Empathy y well.

course we've had actually, I mean murdering the president, yes, but we're probably .

had a cool and broad daylight on november twenty second, one thousand nine hundred sixty three. And we never quite got over IT, and we never looked into IT, the country we covered IT up from the beginning in drip.

By drip evidence comes including the most greek evidence, that that magic bullet, which was one of the justifications of the absurd account of a loan gunman h, was also debunked by the, I think, now eighty eight year old secret service agent two said, I actually put that bullet from the back of the candidate seat and limitation on the structure at the parkland in hospital. So there are so many things wrong with the official emit its proposers. Almost nobody believes that uh, or should believe that. But it's also interesting for all that we're discussing. A most likely IT was a IT was a government cool in broad daylight with the tremendous amount of evidence that IT was a conspiracy at a high level a and yet IT passed for the the last sixty one years without uh, any uh official practical note of that fact.

You think that was the last time the C I tried to influence domestic politics in this country.

Well, i'm sure that you the influences influences domestic politics all the time in this country because we know about extensive surveilLance Operations. So this was but it's interesting, you know, next year will be the fifth anniversary of the church committee here. And Frank church was a very unusual figure from idaho, a pretty stage republican state.

And he was A A Young, gifted patriot whose a favorite senator was a bora, a conservative republican senator. And he was just an upright, a very decent person, who was saw more and more, my god, is the things we're talking about. Somethings not right.

People are going assassinated other countries. Our government IT doesn't look a clean. And one thing after another in a series of events, LED him to chair the only time a senate investigative investigative committee actually looked deeply into C.

I. A. Operations. That was one thousand nine hundred and seventy five. fascinating. Uh, you know, what made IT possible was just a confluence of events. Nixon had resigned. Ford was an unelected president who came from congress who didn't want to take on congress.

So he didn't resist, uh, churches, uh, investigation, even though his cheap of staff, dici was telling a got in this guy, we've got a crush this investigation uh but ford said, no, no, no we can't in anyways stream cord and I don't want to get into another huge fight hover had died um jet ghosts had died in one thousand nine hundred and seventy two I believe so the FBI couldn't resist the same way a uh, bill colby had become C I. A director and he don t want to inherit all the shit from right, the passi. So there came this one moment when all these pieces enabled actually someone to look into what this was doing.

And the first thing they discovered was no one had ever looked into any of that before. No second they discovered this is a an army of the president of the united states. Is this a private army? And they debated, is that a rope army doesn't do IT on its owner? Is that an army of the president? But it's an army, and it's an army completely outside of our our oversight control.

Then the third thing they found is there is session hitting lots of people. They are assassinating americans, by the way, through these unbelievably crazy ellis's experiments, they, you know, basically, uh, they weren't the ones to put the bullet through the head of patrice la mumba in the congo, but they they tried and they were. They supported the overthrow of lambda.

And of course, they were trying to kill castro and many other things. So they found unbelievable things. Now that was one thousand nine hundred and seventy five since then were forty nine years.

There has never been another church committee of its kind. It's unbelievable how many things have happened since then. The list, believe me, is very, very long.

I've seen some of IT so directly. I think IT is just shocking to me, but just an insight how our country works would you know very well. But to me I find IT so weird.

I was asked to help um a arrested in hate. yes. K hate.

Oh so poor, so unstable, so desperate. And I asked me for economic help. That's what I do. That's that's my expertise.

So I, uh, flew down to porter prince and I had a very good meeting with him and at the end of the meeting said, uh, mr. Sex, they are gonna take me out. They're gonna take me out and does what he mean is there's there's, they're going overthrowing me.

Okay, sorry to be so naive as I am. I said, no, we're going to make this work. You know, this is we're going to make this work.

No, no, no. They are going to take me out I said, no, no, i'm going back to washington. We're going to help with the american development bank and world bank and I, M, F and h.

I'm so nice so of course, then they decide to take him out. Uh and the way they do IT is destabilized the country. So first thing is closed down the I, F, closed down the world bank, closed down the interamerican development squeak, squeak, squeeze.

The next thing is you send in some mercy aries, who are going to create trouble. Come over the border from the mica republic. The last thing was rather remarkable, which was the U.

S. Ambassador showed up at his door literally one day and said, mr. President, you have to flee.

We have a plane waiting for you, otherwise your life is in danger. And they LED him to play with on mark tail. And twenty three hours later, he was in central african republic.

So this is what's called a cow, a cow broad day central america? absolutely. I, I, he afterwards.

But the first the landing was central african republic. I remember correctly. So I, what would I do? What can I do? Well, I can.

I call up the new york times reporter on the beat and I said, there's been a cool and brought daylight. I don't, you know, you got ta cover this. The reporter told me my editor is not interested. Call with our hemisphere .

all the .

news that's fit different.

So I have wanted amazing. So I wanted to ask you about that. I mean, you said there had been no correctly there have been no real oversight hearings into the intel agencies in fifty years.

Yes, but you the congressional itunes are only one part of the oversight the constitution prescribes. And the other part, of course, is the media, right? Provide overside oversight. government. And I the moment I .

really .

wanted to speak to you was the day that I saw the clip of you on bloomberg news of the one .

of my favorite moments.

And we used to describe, and IT was within hours of this massive antia gas pipeline, nord's stream disintegrating. Can you describe .

what what happened? yeah. So you know, the us. Blew up nord stream as IT promise to, and probably dozens of occasions.

But the most recent of those occasions was a president biden, uh, said I think it's february seven, twenty twenty two I may have the date little bit off but he said in a statement to the press if the russians invade ukraine, nord stream is finished um and the reporter who asked him the question I think from germany but international said, well, most president, how can you say that? How could you do that and he looks and he says, very crazy. Believe me, we have our ways.

Okay, so this is and then you can go back and find a thousand clips, Victoria, new and cruise. Everyone saying, this must stop. This must stop.

Will ever let IT have IT will be destroyed. IT will be ended. Okay, so then it's blown up. okay.

And you and the area, you know, well, before we get to that, I was on bloomer soon afterwards. I don't remember whether there was the next day, the day after. And I said, you know, I think the U.

S. In this minister sax, how can you, how can you say that? And I said, well, first the president said he was going.

He was gonna over and then there's actually, you know, some readings of planes and the vicinity and so forth and and a there was the tweet by the former and now current foreign minister of pollen. Thank you, USA. With the picture of of the the water bubbling over the blown up pipeline radical, of course I tweet. And there was an apple bombs.

Husband.

there was a bit of evidence that, well, yes, the united states had done this. Thank you very much that they said they won. They did IT um I was yanked off the air within thirty seconds.

I could watch, I could imagine, because he was listening to something in the earplug e which I could only imagine get that sound of a bitch off the air. And they just this interviews over and he stopped and then the another anchor be raided me for a few minutes, few minutes after that. And okay, that was the last time I had a word on my string edy. I have to tell you, 70岁呀呀。

But you've been famous. I did. I live in this country. I know you've been famous .

for decades. Yeah, I was no everything. M, S, B, C, I, A lot is constantly.

but is so interesting that your sin was saying something true, right? That the media really should be on. I mean, this is the largest active industrial sabotage in my lifetime. It's the larger is a big deal carbon .

emission yeah ever. You know, it's a look, it's it's a big deal. It's an active war. IT helps to understand what this ukraine war is all about.

IT helps us to understand that this is a war between the united states and russia in on many means. It's important understand that uh IT also has a deeper economic significance because it's part of a long standing uh U S. Idea of not letting germany in russia too close together economically. So there's a lot to that story and but .

it's again covering that.

Look, if you can kill a president in broad daylight, uh and get away with that for sixty one years, if you can walk a president of the neighboring country out to an unmarked plane and not have IT covered, if you can have a quote, unprovoked war that you provoked over a thirty year period, you can do lots of things. And this is just one of the things that you can do.

And i've discovered that, uh, some of our press, like the new york times, which ophite after the blow up the h looks like russia did that you know, to their own to their own infrastructure, their reporters so their top reporters know Better. They tell me, yeah jeff, of course, of course, but they don't cover IT because we're living in in environment where the people in power think it's a game and they think that it's not their job to tell us there. They're playing risk with our lives.

They're playing risk with ukrainian lives. They don't have to tell us the truth. We don't have to have any serious discussion. We don't have to call anyone for a real hearing or even much less congressional stigand. We're not living in that kind of world. We're living in a world where it's almost daily that the government says what he wants curb at the White house, says IT with that dam mark of his a and pretty much everyone knows its lies but why haven't it's just .

interesting because you're from a very specific class, you know well known academic economists, diplomats, frequent TV guest and you know there are a bunch of other people on that world yeah but you were pretty much the only person to say, no, that's a lie and i'm going on with why why you why do you do with all of your peers?

Did I do IT because IT IT came, uh, as part of my life course, working mostly internationally, talking with the leaders abroad. I care about my credibility a lot, which is, you know, i'm not always right, but I try to always be right. yes.

And I have a lot of discussions every day with foreign isters or with senior diplomats or with heads of state. And for me, I I don't hold an office. I I don't do anything other than try to have reasonable ideas and speak as truthful ly as possible. So it's kind of A A career approach, which is i'm trying to be accurate.

right? But there should be a lot of people like you in your world.

And I know for me that i'm not interested, and I would not take a job in the U. S. government. For example.

I got IT anyway, you know, with all the things i've said, I can imagine the congressional here exit would be, did you say that about the U. S. government? Did you say that about the U. S. government? But in any event, i'm not looking for job.

I'm not looking for U. S. I, D. grant. I'm not looking for A U. S. government. grant. So in that sense also, i'm not um i'm not part i'm not exactly I hope I trapped in that way.

I just trying to be accurate and what i'm really, really trying is to help the the united states government understand they are Operating and dangerous dangerous trajectories, ies and with a lot of delusions. And it's very risky for everybody. And I also have a big measure of resentment.

I don't like the risks that we are being put under. Talker, yes, I do. I like this, not a game.

I got grandchildren and I really care about this. And I don't like the games, and I want people to tell the truth. And we if we told the truth, we could actually stop the wars today.

I don't mean that sounds crazy. It's not crazy if we told the truth about ukraine. If biden called pun and said that nato enlargement, we've been trying for thirty years, it's off.

We get IT. You're right. It's not going to your border, ukraine. I should be neutral. That war would stop today. Out there be lots of pieces to figure out where exactly will the borders be. How would go? I I don't say there won't be issues, but the fighting would stop today if the government of israel either were told or said there will be a state of palestine and we will live peacefully side by side. The fighting would stop today.

These are basic facts, basic matters of truth, that if we actually spoke them and we actually treated each other like grown ups, we would resolve what seem to be this, you know, insurmountable ple uh, insurmountable ble crisis. They're not at all insurmountable ble. They just require a measure of truth.

How have you been treated by your peers for saying things like I hear what you just said and I think it's it's just beautiful also very honorable um you seem to be acting on the best motives, traditional american motives I would say, yeah so I admire you saying that how have your peers responded to you?

They think i'm a little crazy.

I think what what would be crazy about what you just said?

Well, you know, when I said I that this war has a reason that is not that putin's evil, that, uh, we provoke this and that he could stop, uh, I got most of my remaining interactions saying, jeff, what is the matter with you? You're put apologist, you know, how dare you? When I say this about israeli, I lose another another group.

But yes, because there are things you're supposed to say here, you're because this idea of U S hagerman, this idea of U S dominance, it's pretty deep in uh, american academia also. I mean that I don't it's not a shock to tell you, but all of these um uh special uh organic that think tanks or university uh special uh departments or uh or research units, they're funded by the U S. government.

They're funded by the security state. They are funded by large donors that are all part of the story. So it's not absolutely simple to get out of that. I think mark plain, I think he was the one that said that may have been banking. But I think it's attribute to to do pain that that said h, it's impossible to convince amount of something when his job depends on the and believing the other uh and I think that's true of a lot of people, which is I can't really say that. I don't know if it's true, but anyway, why you sticking your head out so much?

I I got to ask you about visual. Thank you. I think that was that the crisp s and I think most honest description i've ever heard of the lead up to what's happening in ukraine.

I I so thank you for that. Um so give you the credibility that you just gained by that explanation. Where do you think covered came from?

Covered um the question is which lab and in which way a IT almost surely did not come out of nature uh IT almost surely came out of a deliberate research project that had a core idea which was to take a natural virus and make IT more infectious. And we have one major blueprint of that, which is a research proposal called defuse a, which was submitted to the department of defense uh to the unit called darpa in two thousand eighteen.

And IT is a kind of cookbook for how to make the virus that causes cove in nineteen and the virus is called saris cove two. And what's distinctive about saris cove, too, is that IT has a something called a prodigy etic cleavage site, and specifically something called a fun, clever age site. And it's just some pieces of the genome that make this thing damn infectious.

And what's interesting about IT is that for this class of bat viruses, which are called beta corona viruses, which is what SARS comes from and what covet nineteen comes from for that class of viruses. And there are several hundred known, none of them in nature ever had that particular piece of the genome come. None, none other than sarce cove, too.

And that piece of the genome of the fun, clever age site was an object of research attention from two thousand five, because IT was understood that if a virus were to have that, I would make the entry of the virus into human cells easier and would make the virus therefore infectious for humans. SARS one, which is the first outbreak of a virus slightly in two thousand and three in hong kong, was most likely a natural virus. H, that came from a farm animal.

And IT was not so infectious. IT killed some thousands of people. But with SARS one, you got very, very sick four weeks before you were infectious ous to someone else.

And that meant that I was not so hard to stop by isolating people. The symptoms with SARS cove two, you are infectious ous even without any symptoms, sometimes you're completely a symptomatic. So what's the difference of SARS one and SARS cove to the fear and clive at site? And in two thousand, five already.

So almost twenty years ago that experiment was done that that oh takes one ad in if you're in clavet site, this thing becomes really infectious. And there are series of experiments, two thousand and five, two thousand nine, two thousand eleven, that are called gain of function experiments, where you deliberately manipulate the virus to make IT more infectious. By twenty and fifteen, we had a full blown research program funded by nih, by tony vouches unit on beta corona of viruses already with the lead scientists focusing on this fear and cleavage site is starting to get. So they're starting to do more and more targeted experiments.

May I ask why? Why would you want to take a virus like that to make IT more infectious there?

The overarching answer is called biodefense. And the and and the real question, which I don't know the answer to, is that bio warfare, or is that true defense? Nih, starting in two thousand, one, became the defense department's research unit. So remember the anthrax attack that came after very well. Yes.

after I start rescue post, do we know or are you satisfied? You know what that was that .

probably came out of amid is probably a us. Uh, you know, some U. S. Scientists, either for sure, king, or doing some crazy things or disgruntled boosting up the D O D budget. I don't know, I don't know the answer to that. I know that after that, D O D put its budget through tony fouche unit, which suddenly became the largest unit of nh and fought, became the head of what is politely called biodefense. But one only suspects that IT is, we're not supposed to do biowarfare.

It's used to called jure warfare, right?

And I don't know. And they say, well, it's it's for vaccines against bioware fear, it's to defend against IT. It's to defend against natural outbreaks.

But what IT is is a tremendously dangerous research program that involves a lot of manipulation of very dangerous pathogens. And by twenty fifteen, the ability of scientists to manipulate these viruses was reaching a sounding proportion. And we've got a real genius who was part of this group, a named rf beric at university of north CarOlina, who is a genius.

And what he could do was if you gave him, uh, thirty thousand letters of the D N A code A G C C G A and south forth. And I mean, given the letters, he'll turn that into a live virus. I think that's pretty damn remarkable. Other words, you the designer virus, he'll give you the live virus.

Um and he created what's called a reverse genetic system to make these viruses and to put in pieces into the viruses uh with the technique which he also called no sem a meaning you suture in apart but you do in in a way that you can't identify that IT was put in in the lab. So it's so without the fingerprints, says IT were and it's clear that this area of research picked up a tremendous amount of steam because a lot of american scientists were shouting, this is so damn dangerous, stopped. And fouche was saying, no, this is important.

This is really crucial. We're going to continue to do this. There was a brief moratorium during at the end of the obama period, and then the moratorium was lifted during the trump administration.

And even during the more touring period, we know that the research continued on many grants. It's clear when you look closely at this that they were getting closer and closer to this insertion of the fear and cleavage site into SARS like viruses. Now, in twenty eighteen came this proposal.

As always, this was a highly classified proposal. We only learned about IT after the fact by a whistle blower. We never even would have learned about IT even in all of the commotion of the pandemic.

But for a whistle blower, a brave whistle blower in the department of defense who said, the public needs to see this. And when you look at the refuse proposal, really, you say, holy shit, because on page ten, IT says we have collected more than one hundred eighty previously unreported beta corona viruses. And on page eleven, IT says we're gona test them for whether they have a podium lid cleavage site, which is a fun, clever age site.

And if they don't, we're gonna insert. If you're in click good side into them. It's the guidance cookbook for how to make this virus.

So here comes the the defense department turned IT down. It's supposedly, I mean, probably did. And then comes the question, well, so what happened? Well, the people that wrote that little cookbook said, not us.

We didn't do anything like that. Now IT got turned down. Nothing to look at here and um there are also I know because people have told me, oh, jeff, it's not just that I got turned down.

They had done the work even before they submitted the grand proposal. That's not uncommon in science, which is you do a lot of the work beforehand. So i've heard that on good authority.

I can't verify IT personally um and there are so many strands now that say, yeah something really screw was going on for example, there is a very weird paper, weird to me by bark and the head of what's called rock amount laboratory which is a nih laboratory under pouches authority that reports this completely bizarre uh finding and the finding is sounds very technical but IT says the wuhan institute virology type one virus does not infect egyptian fruit ATS okay ay that's the the title. So you say so what helps that? What that is, is that obviously in twenty nineteen and twenty eighteen they were doing experiments using viruses from wuhan in the rocky mountain labs with their collection of bats.

Okay, so one theory, the end the bats in a rocking out labs s is a called egyptian fruit bat. Uh, it's not the kind of bat that Carries this virus in china, which is in unna, which is a different kind of bat. But they tried IT in rockin out lab.

I scratch my handset. What the hell? We have rock mt.

Lab doing experiments with wuhan viruses in montana, in nih labs with rough bark, who is one of the principal investigators of the insert of fear and clive age site into the virus. I like to know more about that. Thank you.

Isn't that curious? Then there are other scientists that have pieces of this puzzle. So the answers we don't know exactly one theory is that IT was conducted in the U.

S. And sent over to wuhan to this wall han institute of vireo logy for testing in their back in their bat collection, which is. The chinese bats rather than the egyptian fruit bats.

That's plausible. That's one person's theory. There are other theories that even A A related research group, A A german and duch may have played a role because they have in wuhan research.

But when the virus broke out in that uh, period at the end of twenty nineteen, early twenty twenty, there's commotion among the scientist. What analyses where this come from? Oh my god, we do this.

How to escape or whatever? Nobody knows, of course. So they start having secret calls. And one of the most uh important these calls was on february first twenty twenty that was then uh uh memorialized by one of the participants in a long memo, all of which became public through a freedom of information act subsequently because our government has lied to us about every single moment of this from the start, hasn't told us anything about any of this is all whistle blowers or freedom of information act.

That's the only way we know any of what i'm describing to you right now. No one has told the truth at all. So I and the february first call, the scientists say, oh, gone.

This looks like a lab stuff. One of them says, I can figure out how this could have ever come out of nature. And they're all looking at the fear and climbed site because they know this group of scientists knows that's the objective research.

That's the goal. It's never been seen before in a virus like this. It's know it's it's the signature right there. I did this. And four days later that group authors the first draft of a paper called the proximal origins of SARS cove, too, that says it's a natural virus. The same .

people at .

the same people who privately said it's out of a lab works like.

so it's just that is the .

provably a cover up then that's a cover up. This paper is a fraud. IT has not been retracted til today, and it's a fraud. Where did IT run? IT ran in nature medicine in march.

which I sidel one of the most credible medical channels .

when I read IT. When IT came out, I was, I think, the most sighted paper in biology or in medicine by far. And twenty, twenty, everyone wanted to know where this virus came from. I read IT and I went around knowing ingy telling everyone, no, it's not a, it's natural. You have to read proxim al origins of SARS cove too.

because IT current you, they would lie in .

nature medicine because this is the top of the heap of the scientific journals and the scientific establishment, the top nature. You know, there are two great science magazines in the world that have A A history that is so deep. One is science, that's the U.

S. one. And the second is nature, which is the british one, and nature is the one that originally published Darwin. And, you know, it's so illustrate, and I was so smug, you know, oh, you didn't read nature as sarce cove two practices ble origins because you believe that stuff, when it's written, there is a fraud. That paper .

and IT IT stands .

to this day.

To this day, they have not retracted IT. There is last week a call by several scientists to the editor of very clever one calling for its retraction. Because this is interesting all in the weeds. But it's like everything we're talking about non stop lying.

The paper was to as an important extent hunch wed by somebody named jerrem for our who at the time was the director of british welcome trust which is a huge uh foundation that supports biomedical research and for our was working with fouche uh to make IT look like nature. And so he was part of this, uh, he was part of this group, but he's not a named author. And at the bottom of the article, this more details than you want to know.

But at the bottom of the article, thanks. Welcome trust. Well, under the rules of science and under the rules of a journal, if there is an a contributor who financed the thing but is not mentioned as a contributor to the article, that is per say, a violation of a of conflict of interest starters. And that wasn't revealed. So just last week, a group of very illustrious biologist called for the retraction of this. I've called for the retraction of IT because it's an outright fraud because we have slack messages and other email messages and other other e messaging ah that says I don't really believe this or you know it's other words, it's clearly it's clearly a fragile and paper, but they they're not moving to this mode.

But how can you so there's a lot of debate about a pendell c treaty to be chose cause pushing a lots of countries are as well as you well know. How can you prepare for A A new pandemic without establishing the origin of the most recent pandemic and more .

we're gona have another pandemic. If IT came out of a lab, they're still doing this work. It's not as if they said, oh, oh my god, we really blew IT.

Now we stop. Gain of function researchers. There's gain of function research going on all over the place.

mean. And then interestingly, talker, you know, last year, almost almost like monty python, amen. But it's so serious. Uh, boston university put out of paper based on gain of function for manipulating the Sarah scope too and and N I H says, ah you can ask for approval before doing that experiment and boston university says, we don't have this for approval. It's not on your grand.

We just were doing IT like we want and IT shows we got a shit show going on in this country right now if a university thinks that can do whatever he wants and if nih has a different opinion and we have no rules and they're doing work on dangerous pathogens, yeah, we're going have another pandemic. If even if this one didn't come from IT, were this this line of work is really dangerous. And who's watching IT? Well, we don't know.

Because it's D O, D, because it's confidential, because no one tells us anything. And interestingly, you know, now the house investigation committees trying to get at some of this, the democrats completely surrounded fouche. And so we don't want to have a look at this and said, this is republican grandstanding.

It's not what could be less partisan then where this virus came from. And we can't even get democrats in the house now. I think a few of them are coming along, but for a time IT was completely paradigm.

The republicans could investigate in the house, but in the senate where the democrats are controlled, they were saying no and ran pai ask me to come in and meet his counterpart who's the chair of the committee. Uh, Peters and I did. And now, by the way, they are moving in the senate because you got these bright red lights flashing. Holy hell, let's find out what happened.

Is IT strange to wake up one day and all that and see, like actual threats, the existence of humanity right there nuclear war by a warfare um possibly A I yeah um but 就是 right there mean what what big picture。 What is this? Did you ever think you would, after living in the most prosperous country in the world your entire life, find yourself in place where the country you live in is basically causing um you know the potential extinction of .

of humanity you know I think it's it's really true and important understand that since nineteen forty five, we've been living this way and we don't know IT were barely aware of IT, but the ability to screw things up in this world is very high.

The ability to have terrible accidents, oops, I where that I just come from, yeah, the ability to have nuclear war by even by accident, but much less when you're in the face of your opponent and talking about defeating them and so forth, a war between two nuclear superpowers that we have Normalized yeah oh, we're not at all. We're just feeding them all the weapons and they can and the british, who are the worst at this, yeah, they can use the weapons wherever they want. Uh you know no no constraint, no control.

We've been living this way but we don't know IT because like everything else, the narrative doesn't permit IT one day, uh, biden, uh, said in, I think I was the fall of twenty twenty two ah you know this is pretty dangerous. We could be on a path to nuclear ARM a garden. He didn't say that in the speech to the american people because he doesn't give speeches to the american people.

He doesn't talk to the american people. He doesn't have press conferences. So he said, IT IT some fund raiser as usual. And then someone reported IT.

What was the reaction of the press the next day, almost to a paper? The reaction was, how dare he say these things? How dare he scared the people? How dare he say a word like arManda? There was thinking editorial on the wall street journal, if I remember correctly, you know that this unforgivable, this kind of slip of the president of the united states, so it's deciding for a moment, blurted out the truth, no doubt by accident.

No odd bt, because he was in some fundraiser, probably trying to impress some donor uh but the reaction wasn't, oh my god, what does this mean? How do we consider this? Let's go back and think about unprovoked, unprovoked, unprovoked.

And maybe we could decide how to step a little bit back from from the Cliff. And um no, absolutely the opposite, completely the opposite. And i've seen, I mean, not only the you you could have a pandemic that kills an estimated twenty million people are not really cared to find out what came from.

You can be on the brink of nuclear war. We can have ukraine shelling this Operation and nuclear power plant. Do you know our newspapers won't say that is ukraine shelling the power plant? All they will sit in ukraine. Iis shelling the nuclear power plant.

I can reveal, as if it's a as as if it's a surprise because the russians are inside the power plant and the ukrainians are trying to take back the power plan。 And so these shells come to the nuclear power plant. And then our lovely, our lovely newspapers say each side accuses the other of shelling the nuclear power plant.

And I happen to know for you are the reasons that I know some of these things that the, of course, is ukraine shelling a plant that the russians are inside of, not russians shellin the plant. The, but you can't get official them to say this. You can't get the newspapers to say this.

That's pretty serious to be shelling a nuclear power plan. I mean, are you out of you I put that on the list that we've been adding to. Are you out of your mind? Don't do that. But they're doing IT in in the country.

in the world. There's actually had a profound .

nuclear action already. You might mention that maybe they would know something about IT.

that there would be some, to my sincere question. Could you may rely on the answer?

But you know.

you're telling the truth about things that are big. They are big things like the biggest things. And in a world where you're just absolutely as you've noted repeatedly incorrectly, you're just not love to do that and you're telling the truth about people who don't care about the dust of millions who have caused the test of millions.

So are you worried because you do have credibility? You're not a crunk, and your job in your career give you to promise facial credibility. It's a big thing for you to say these things. Are you worried about the risk to you? Isn't really.

I'm worried about the risks to me of a nuclear war, for sure I really am. I spend a lot of time with diplomats. I really like diplomats, by the way.

It's even when you know, countries hate each other war, good diplomats smile and talk to each other. And one could say, you know, oh, cynical oer. But it's actually quite nice.

I believe the human touch is what can keep us alive. Actually, I don't think it's a naive idea. It's actually a quite deep idea.

Russia has only greatest diplo have ever seen.

And the glove of is absolutely remarkable remark. And i've known him for thirty years. Have you really?

Yeah it's funny. In a fair world, in a medco tic world he'd be very famous even if you disagree everything .

he said because you obviously smart he's a staringly smart and astoundingly capable and and he's a staringly someone that we should be speaking with to find an answer to this so the thing that um makes IT if I were you know shouting in the wilderness and the just felt it's insane, no one's listening. I'd have a very different reaction from the one that I actually Carry day by day.

Almost everyone I talk to around the world is worried, shares, the things were talking about, understands the risks, makes you feel completely Normal, not abNormal in any of this, says, please keep doing this. Can you find a way to tokyo or there? I've spoken twice in the us.

Security council are testified twice in the U. N. Security council in the last two years. I want to make the diplomacy work because our lives depend on IT.

And we we stopped all diplomacy in the united states, all of IT, except what we call speaking with our friends and allies. But diplomacy is not speaking with your friends and allies. Diplomacy is speaking with your counterparts, even your adversary. That's what diplomacy is. And we'd got to get IT back.

Do you think the average jam? I said that was my last question. I do one more. Do you think the average number can even sort inform people? Has has any sense at all of how close we are to a ion lation?

I think people are worried, and people are not happy campers, and people do not agree with the foreign policy of this administration, but people are also very confused because we don't hear anything clear, uh, except when you interview president putin, we get to hear what he says and and think of, I mean, that was a monumental occasion, tucker, and an extraordinary important one.

But how rare IT is, and that's what made is also so extraordinary because you're not supposed to do that. We're not supposed to into that. So I think americans are, uh, they know that something's wrong.

They don't know exactly how could they know what exactly is wrong? The level of trust in government is extraordinary low. That low trust has been, unfortunately, empty, deserve, because our government lies and lies and lies.

And IT doesn't even try to tell the truth anymore. IT tries to make a narrative. So I think people, people sense something seriously wrong. But god, I hope, you know, our lives are in the hands of a few people, and they Better learn some providence, because they have not had IT for a long time.

I and they don't even understand what IT is to talk to a counterpart and my absolute a core bottom line is til biden speaks directly with putin and starts talking, our lives are deeply at risk. And it's uni magin able to me that we are an open war as we are. And we're not even trying to find the path of piece right now.

And we have crazy statements. The president of finland said, uh, the pack to piece is through the battle field. These people don't understand anything. And I was just gonna tion. Two quick things in closing.

One, I spent a lot of my life studying the cuban missile crisis and its aftermath, and I wrote a book about candidate's peace initiative in one hundred and sixty three, uh, which was remarkable because he actually, in the height of the cold war, reached to the partial nuclear tsb and treated with cruce jeff. They both knew we had to pull back from the bring because they both had had advisors that would have let us to nuclear aniela. And they were just completely, completely shocked as the two people who had save the world, but just barely how close we had come.

But one of the things that most people don't know about the cuban missile crisis that even when Kennedy and cruise travel reached agreement, we almost had nuclear war after that event because of the disabled soviet submarine do you know this event because it's is one of the most remarkable little known facts of modern history um and it's worth understanding after Kennedy and cruel chip reach the agreement and the cue missile crisis Kennedy, uh removing the nuclear weapons from turkey and soviet union, removing the nuclear weapons from cuba and the U. S. Promising never again to try to invade cuba.

Uh there was a disabled soviet sub at the bottom of the carribean that had been sent over during the crisis and did the blue asked, as IT were, and temperatures inside hundred twenty degrees and the sailors a, the sailors of painting and the ship deeply disabled. And this was one thousand nine hundred and sixty two. So the communications did not exist.

The ship was out of communication. They had no idea what was going on. So they decided to surface. And as they surfaced, uh, american navy pilots, so were dropping charges on the sub. And it's not absolutely sure.

But one story is that that the a navy pilot, one navy pilot for fun, was dropping live cades, and the sub as I was surfacing, rather than depth charges. And the a pilot thought that they were under attack and that there was a war above the surface. Now this was a the lead sub of a squadron of seven in the carribean, and IT was the one sub in that squadron that had nuclear tip submarines, had nuclear tips.

Torpedos, excuse me. And under U. S. Doctor, on any attack by a nuclear weapon was to be met by the full force of the U. S.

Nuclear arsenal with an attack and across the soviet union, china and all of the eastern european countries estimate seven hundred million dead uh, and that was to happen with any nuclear attack and curtis lemay was the was the head of the U. S. Air force at the time and he couldn't wait. I think it's fair to say yes. It's first say so what happened was this skipper, the commander of the vessel, ordered the nuclear torpedo into the torpedo bay to be fired because he thought the ship was under attack.

And by miracle, a guy named a keep of who was the person who saved the world, whose name nobody knows and i'm pretty sure I have the name right, uh, was a party official that had a higher rank, then the the the the ships captain and so I don't think that's a good idea. I think we should surface. And he countermined the order at the last moment, and the ship surfaced, and they found out there was no war and no crisis.

And that was the end of IT. And we came within a moment of a full nuclear and iolaus. Now that's a true story. If people want to read about IT in detail, the most remarkable book about this is a book by the late history in Martin, sure, when called gambling with armada, which is an absolutely phenomenal work.

And marn shawan h some people neighbor calls the history, and whose the co author of open hyper, which became the yes, the screen play, is a wonderful historian and who died a few years ago. And he tells this story in unbelievable, a riveting detail. Now I take this not only as a literal event, but as a metaphor for our reality, which is, something can always go wrong.

Stay away from the Cliff and stay away from the Cliff. This is how close we are. Talk to president putin.

Negotiate with china. Make a two state solution to stop the war in the middle east. Stop Carrying on like you run the world because you don't.

Thank you for this and I hope that you are heard everywhere. Well.

thank you. Thanks for all your great leadership and this docker because you're playing a huge you rule bumbling along.

but that's the greatest kind of ever heard. So thank you. Thanks for listen to tuck and crossed and show. If you enjoy IT, you can go to tuck and crosses and not calm to see everything that we have made the complete library, dr. Croson dot com.