Speaker 1: We've got a lot to cover on this episode of
Speaker 1: the podcast. There's this bombshell report that the CIA and
Speaker 1: the intelligence community asked foreign spy agencies to surveil twenty
Speaker 1: six associates of Donald Trump heading into the twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 1: Why did they do that? What does that mean? And
Speaker 1: then we also have what's going on in Europe right now,
Speaker 1: the war in Ukraine. We've got the Deputy Secretary of
Speaker 1: Russia Security Council warning about the possibility of an accidental
Speaker 1: nuclear war.
Speaker 2: How would that happen? What do you need to know
Speaker 2: about that?
Speaker 1: We've got the House Intelligence Committee chair warning about a
Speaker 1: serious national security threat. And then you've got FedEx's founder
Speaker 1: Fred Smith talking on Fox News about how Russia, along
Speaker 1: with a brick alliance, is working to dethrone the dollar.
Speaker 2: So what does all of this mean?
Speaker 1: What should you know about what is really happening in
Speaker 1: Ukraine and how it impacts us in the rest of
Speaker 1: the world. We're gonna have Rebecca Koffler on the show today.
Speaker 1: We've had her on before. She always brings a unique
Speaker 1: and interesting perspective to the show. She's a former da
Speaker 1: intelligence officer and author of Putin's playbook. She's also the
Speaker 1: managing editor of Cuttothnews dot com, and she's going to
Speaker 1: break all of this down for you in a very
Speaker 1: in depth way. Trust me, this is a fascinating interview.
Speaker 1: You're gonna learn a lot. I know I did stay tuned.
Speaker 2: Well, Rebecca. It's great to have you back on the show.
Speaker 1: I think it's safe to say that we have a
Speaker 1: lot to cover, so I'm looking forward to hearing your
Speaker 1: insight on a bunch of different topics today.
Speaker 3: Great to be with you, Lisa, you and your audience today.
Speaker 1: I wanted to start out on you know, before we
Speaker 1: get to what's going on in Ukraine, I wanted to
Speaker 1: get to this bombshell report that the CIA and the
Speaker 1: intelligence community asked foreign spy agencies to surveil twenty six
Speaker 1: associates of Donald Trump's heading into the twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 2: Is that normal and what do you make of that report?
Speaker 3: It should not be normal, Lisa. In fact, it is illegal.
Speaker 3: But unfortunately, in the past several years, the intelligence community
Speaker 3: has become so politicized that I am not surprised at all. Uh.
Speaker 3: I mean, they're the one who concocted the whole Trump
Speaker 3: Russia collusion conspiracy theory that effectively destabilized our government for years.
Speaker 3: And it's because they wanted to remove Trump from you know,
Speaker 3: from ballot and then from his presidency. And you know
Speaker 3: what happened as a result of this. You know, Russia's
Speaker 3: threat has been brewing for years, and these people, instead
Speaker 3: of targeting the real foreign threats, they decided to target
Speaker 3: American citizens. They prioritize resources for the wrong thing. And
Speaker 3: now we are in the conundrum with the world being
Speaker 3: on fire because nobody bothered to a identify these threats
Speaker 3: properly and be developed counter measures to them.
Speaker 1: I mean, it also begs the question is our intelligence
Speaker 1: community working for us or against us?
Speaker 3: Well, clearly right now there's and I want to make
Speaker 3: it clear that many, many good people in the intelligence community,
Speaker 3: dedicated honest intelligence officers with whom I had the privilege
Speaker 3: to work with. But I also encountered just like political
Speaker 3: hacks that who were careers and also they were working
Speaker 3: exactly like you said, against us. And that's what this
Speaker 3: whole deep state is about. And you probably know from
Speaker 3: my book that I myself experienced those hacks. They were
Speaker 3: trying to you know, silence my book to censor, the
Speaker 3: attempt to silence and censor my book put his playbook
Speaker 3: in which I want about Putent's invasion of Ukraine that
Speaker 3: was coming, but nobody wanted to do a thinker because
Speaker 3: they were busy, you know, chasing hoaxes and targeting twenty
Speaker 3: six US citizens Trump associates.
Speaker 2: I guess what I'm trying to.
Speaker 1: Is this what they have been doing or do you
Speaker 1: think this was more specific to Donald Trump?
Speaker 3: Okay, well it is more specific to Donald Trump. Before that,
Speaker 3: I never experienced this sort of situation. Yes, there is
Speaker 3: a counterintelligence program within the intelligence community, obviously, because the
Speaker 3: concern is always that foreign intelligence agencies would try to
Speaker 3: infiltrate their own spies, their operatives, and so we're constantly
Speaker 3: on the lookout to identify those. But this particular thing
Speaker 3: was an a normal and now it has become normalized.
Speaker 3: Why did it happen is because a lot of people,
Speaker 3: particularly in the CIA, particularly on the analytics side, left
Speaker 3: us and the operational guys, the ones who actually go
Speaker 3: in the field, they tend to be, you know, more conservative.
Speaker 3: And the truth is that we're not supposed to be
Speaker 3: partisan at all. We take like a form of an
Speaker 3: oath when we join the intelligence community that we're supposed
Speaker 3: to speak truth to power, how we see it, you know,
Speaker 3: how the threat presents itself, how we're identifying, you know,
Speaker 3: the key indicators. That's how we're supposed to report it.
Speaker 3: But what happens is that some of the elements, and
Speaker 3: especially those who are in charge, and we know their names, right,
Speaker 3: it's uh, it's James, call me, John Brennan and James Clapper.
Speaker 3: They are the architects of the collusion hoaks and they
Speaker 3: spent you know, a lot of resources on this. And yes,
Speaker 3: because they're Trump haters.
Speaker 2: You know, yeah, I guess it.
Speaker 1: You know, Chuck Schumer did say that the you know, uh,
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies have six ways from Sunday of getting back
Speaker 1: to you, are getting back at you.
Speaker 2: Uh you know, went.
Speaker 1: Directed at Donald Trump of saying that you know, basically
Speaker 1: they'll get the revenge, and oh, exactly they have exactly.
Speaker 3: I want I want to nuanced a little bit something
Speaker 3: of what I said. It's not just I said just
Speaker 3: Donald Trump, it's anybody who would be their political opponent. Right.
Speaker 3: We know that they targeted Taker carlst This is why
Speaker 3: for three years, you know, he wasn't able to get
Speaker 3: an interview with the Russian President Ladmir Putin. They actually
Speaker 3: were surveying him twenty four seven. You know his communications,
Speaker 3: Tucker causons. So it's other US citizens who are not
Speaker 3: with the party line, who are not with the program
Speaker 3: for independent thinkers, and who are actually trying to bring
Speaker 3: the truth to the American people. So I wouldn't be surprised, Lisa,
Speaker 3: you're quite you know, you always speak the truth to
Speaker 3: your audience, so I wouldn't be surprised if you became
Speaker 3: a target.
Speaker 2: Well, let's not, let's not put that off. Leave me alone.
Speaker 1: I'm just you know, I know, I'm just trying to
Speaker 1: live my life.
Speaker 3: You know, it's kind of a joke.
Speaker 4: But if you hed about it, to think about it
Speaker 4: as the Russians like to say, there's a joke in
Speaker 4: every joke, meaning that usually jokes are based on Now
Speaker 4: I'm true.
Speaker 1: You know Tucker did finally, you know, he did get
Speaker 1: that interview with Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 2: What did you make of it?
Speaker 1: And why do you think there was so much effort
Speaker 1: to try to prevent that from happening.
Speaker 3: Well, I answered the second question first. The reason why,
Speaker 3: especially the US government tried to prevent Tucker from doing
Speaker 3: it is because Tucker, again, like I said, talker is
Speaker 3: an independent thinker. He's not down with the party line.
Speaker 3: He wanted to really get down to the bottom of
Speaker 3: who Putin is because remember, Russia is one of the
Speaker 3: top annissaries of the United States, just like China. And
Speaker 3: this is actually what the intelligence community should be doing,
Speaker 3: is trying to get inside Pulu's brain, and instead they
Speaker 3: were trying to get inside Tuckers and Trump associates networks
Speaker 3: and their brains. Right. So that's and they didn't want
Speaker 3: the American people to hear what Putin has to say
Speaker 3: because the Russia Ukraine issues really not simple. It's very
Speaker 3: very complex, and the deep state tried to simplify it
Speaker 3: Russia bad, Ukraine good. No, Putin is not a saint,
Speaker 3: absolutely not, but neither is z Lensky. Lensky authorizes his
Speaker 3: intelligence services to interrogate Ukraine's Christian Orthodox priests. He also
Speaker 3: authorizes his spy opera to grab our military age Ukrainian
Speaker 3: men off the street to go serve in the military
Speaker 3: because he's running of out of resources right now, right
Speaker 3: And so this interview, which was by the way, two hours,
Speaker 3: seven minutes and eighteen seconds, and I listened to the
Speaker 3: entire thing in both languages, in Russian and in English,
Speaker 3: and it reveals Putin's thinking. And Putin made a case.
Speaker 3: Putin is an attorney, right, He's a trained attorney, and
Speaker 3: he wants everything to at least appeal legal, and if
Speaker 3: something that he wants to do is illegal, then he
Speaker 3: modifies the law like he did, you know, modify the
Speaker 3: Russian constitution to allow himself to continue running for presidency.
Speaker 3: And so he revealed in his monologue why Russia has
Speaker 3: claims on some of the lands that are now part
Speaker 3: of Ukraine. Again, it's complicated, and if American people hear us,
Speaker 3: that would make them think, oh, Putin actually has a
Speaker 3: point on some of these things.
Speaker 1: We've got to take a quick commercial break. More with
Speaker 1: Rebecca Kaufler on the other side, do you think from
Speaker 1: listening to it, because obviously the argument of sending money
Speaker 1: to Ukraine and being involved in, you know, helping Ukraine
Speaker 1: defend itself against Russia is that, well, if we don't
Speaker 1: help Ukraine, Russia is going to expand beyond those borders.
Speaker 1: Did you get the sense from this interview is that
Speaker 1: what Putin has on his mind, you know, kind of
Speaker 1: what was your sense about where Putin views this war
Speaker 1: with Ukraine, his standing in the world, and sort of
Speaker 1: what his broader ambitions currently are.
Speaker 3: Sure, while this interview just confirmed my previous and these analysis,
Speaker 3: and that is no, Putin does not have any designs
Speaker 3: on the Baltics, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, on Poland, god forbid.
Speaker 3: Uh here's why not Only like Tucker said, he doesn't
Speaker 3: need those lands. He has enough trouble on his hands
Speaker 3: managing Russia. But also from the strategic uh standpoint, those countries,
Speaker 3: Poland and the Baltics are part of NATO. Putin is
Speaker 3: not an idiot, nor he's suicidal. Attacking one of those
Speaker 3: countries would trigger Article five collective defense and NATO is
Speaker 3: conventionally superior than Russia. What does it mean that when
Speaker 3: it comes to the kinetic conflict, Russia couldnot possibly win
Speaker 3: if it had a direct confrontation or war with the
Speaker 3: United States unless it takes the war into the nuclear realm.
Speaker 3: Putin does not want to do that because that would
Speaker 3: be effectively, you know, world War three, the end of
Speaker 3: the world. And again, he's a rational human being, and
Speaker 3: so now and those people who claim, like Chuck Schumer
Speaker 3: and all of those, you know, professional liars who want
Speaker 3: to gine up additional billions for Ukraine so that those
Speaker 3: of Ukraine and all doxk are not spend it on
Speaker 3: buying their larger yards and whatever and bigger mentions. Those
Speaker 3: people are illogical because on the one hand they've been
Speaker 3: marking the Russian military about its incompetent performance. On the
Speaker 3: other hand, they claim that is going to go after
Speaker 3: a NATO country, Well, what is it? It can be both, right,
Speaker 3: So they speak out of both sides of their mouth
Speaker 3: because there's they just have ulterior motives when it comes
Speaker 3: to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: You know, what what do you make of House Intelligence
Speaker 1: Committee Chair Mike Turner has been talking about a serious
Speaker 1: national security threat?
Speaker 2: What do you think that is?
Speaker 1: And and why do you think he's putting that out there?
Speaker 3: I was stunned, Lisa, when I heard this, this thing
Speaker 3: basically dominating the airwaves, and my phone was ringing off
Speaker 3: the hook. You know, people were asking what do you
Speaker 3: make of it? What do you make of it? First
Speaker 3: of all, it is irresponsible for him to talk about
Speaker 3: something like that. It was also curious why he decided
Speaker 3: to talk about this type of situation, and I'll give
Speaker 3: you and your listeners my fresh of the process, so
Speaker 3: to speak, intelligence analysis on what is exactly the threat
Speaker 3: that Journey is talking about. And my intelligence reveals to
Speaker 3: me that it's about the recent launch of a hypersonic
Speaker 3: cruise missile called Tirkon. Tirquon was developed specifically on Pun's orders.
Speaker 3: It's a hypersonic missile that serves as a counter to
Speaker 3: US ballistic missile defense because the United States exited the
Speaker 3: A b M Treaty and now that the two countries
Speaker 3: are in a proxy war over the control of Ukraine,
Speaker 3: which Russia perceives as it's part of its strategic security
Speaker 3: parameter kind of part of the It's similar to US
Speaker 3: Monroe doctrine. I mean, we wouldn't allow Russia China to
Speaker 3: get as close as Mexico or Canada, and so of
Speaker 3: course Pool, you know, Ukraine is a red line for him,
Speaker 3: and so these weapons were being built for a few
Speaker 3: years now. And I'm actually one of the people who
Speaker 3: did brief Mike Turner's staff when I was at the
Speaker 3: Defense Intelligence Agency on hypersonics. And interestingly, you know, nobody
Speaker 3: wanted to do anything about it. And in fact, the
Speaker 3: United States, our own pentergon, has yet to field our
Speaker 3: own capability, even though China and Russia are way ahead
Speaker 3: of us. And so all of a sudden turner decided
Speaker 3: to reveal this, which really really smells specially to me.
Speaker 3: I think what he's trying to do is basically gin
Speaker 3: up additional billions for Ukraine. And now that you know
Speaker 3: Senate has passed the bill, you know, uh, they're going
Speaker 3: to continue or they're trying to continue milking the I
Speaker 3: as taxpayer for more foreign aid, as though this additional
Speaker 3: billions can do something that two hundred billions haven't done already.
Speaker 3: And so that's what is to me, it's all about.
Speaker 3: It's again, it's a shameful politicization of intelligence.
Speaker 2: And what's the danger of hypersonic weapons.
Speaker 3: Here's the danger. Hypersonic weapons are very fast and they
Speaker 3: are highly maneuverable, and what that means is that our
Speaker 3: missile defenses protecting the United States from missile strikes would
Speaker 3: have a really hard time intercepting those. In fact, Putin
Speaker 3: has said many many times that so Gone is capable
Speaker 3: of penetrating BMD that Putin will never authorize an attack
Speaker 3: on the United States, either kinetic, whether it's with hypersonic
Speaker 3: weapons or with nuclear weapons, unless and this is the
Speaker 3: very important point, unless the Russian intelligence detects the United
Speaker 3: States either has launched or is about to launch, either
Speaker 3: a kinetic strike on Russia or non kinetic but crippling
Speaker 3: strike on Russia, or in some other way crossed the
Speaker 3: red line. For example, something like retaking or an attempt
Speaker 3: to retake Crimea that Russia views as Russian having an exit,
Speaker 3: or retaking some part of Ukraine that the Russian forces
Speaker 3: currently control. Only in that case would authorize something like that,
Speaker 3: But again, it wouldn't be a bolt out of the
Speaker 3: blue sky. That will be what we call an intelligence
Speaker 3: community escalation ladder. And this is what I Putin has
Speaker 3: been telegraphing to us by via cyber attacks, via all
Speaker 3: of these warnings. This is the red line. This is
Speaker 3: a red line. Don't do it, don't send weaponry to Ukraine.
Speaker 3: So we would have plenty of time to think about
Speaker 3: the problem is, Lisa, is that it seems like our
Speaker 3: intelligence and security operon us, and more importantly, our president
Speaker 3: as simply incapable of realistically assessing our adverstories and their mindset,
Speaker 3: as well as our own resources. We have depleted our
Speaker 3: own weapons, arsenal. We are depleting our own treasury by
Speaker 3: throwing good money after bed, good weaponry after bed to
Speaker 3: Ukraine for nothing. And so now we could be defenseless
Speaker 3: because of the idiotic decisions that the Biden administration has made.
Speaker 1: You know, one other thing that you know concerned me
Speaker 1: is something that FedEx's founder of Fred Smith said the
Speaker 1: other day on Fox about how Russia is working to
Speaker 1: dethrone the dollar, using the Brick Alliance to do so.
Speaker 1: Brick is you know, Brazil, Russia, India, and China as
Speaker 1: well as South Africa. I believe there's other countries like
Speaker 1: Egypt to Ethiopia, Rod, Saudi Arabia and the Amaraates as well.
Speaker 2: You know, what should people know about that?
Speaker 1: I mean that seems like it should be getting more
Speaker 1: attention than it has been.
Speaker 3: Sure, yes, and then fact I wrote a couple of
Speaker 3: months ago a piece on New York Post about that,
Speaker 3: about the bricks and basically the de dollarization trend. But again,
Speaker 3: the crux of the match, Lisa, is that our own
Speaker 3: you know, the so called expert right, the Washington establishment
Speaker 3: have sort of driven our advisors into to this point
Speaker 3: to start de dollarizing by using our fiat currency, uh,
Speaker 3: the US, the mighty US dollar, as a weapon, by
Speaker 3: placing sanctions on, you know, on foreign countries. Yes, Putain
Speaker 3: could be you know, a bad you know, human being,
Speaker 3: a terrible human being. You know whoever chopped up the
Speaker 3: Russian post uh journalist, the SHORGI Uh, those people are
Speaker 3: also you know, terrible people. But if you are trying
Speaker 3: to you know, chop the branch of the tree on
Speaker 3: which you're sitting, I think it might be a Russian program.
Speaker 3: There is such a thing in English. By digging your
Speaker 3: own hole, then you only have yourself to blame. And
Speaker 3: sanctions never worked. I mean right now, the Russian economy
Speaker 3: is doing very well because it was propped up by
Speaker 3: the defense industrial complex. Because Russian actually, unlike NATO and
Speaker 3: like the United States, transitioned. Oh a, what I'm putting
Speaker 3: years before the invasion. And I actually briefed also the
Speaker 3: White House, Congress, the Pentagon, NATO about that. There's something
Speaker 3: called the special period that triggers the transition of the economy.
Speaker 3: And so the sanctions never worked, So why did we
Speaker 3: do that? And so the third order consequence. That's another
Speaker 3: term we're using the intelligence business, is that by using
Speaker 3: dollar as a weapon, we are uh diminishing our own
Speaker 3: economy and basically eliminating the breast of the future for our
Speaker 3: own country. Because people are not stupid right right now,
Speaker 3: even India is kind of reluctant to use the US dollars.
Speaker 3: Certainly China and Russia they have been de dollarizing the
Speaker 3: economy and that will have very severe consequences in a
Speaker 3: few years for the United States. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And and of those consequences, Fred Smith said that if
Speaker 1: bricks is successful in this deliberate course to dethrone the dollar,
Speaker 1: if that happens, we can't sell our bonds. I can
Speaker 1: assure you the living standards that we all enjoy today
Speaker 1: are going to be a thing of the past, which
Speaker 1: is a pretty damning and scary thing to say. Quick
Speaker 1: break more in Russia, Deputy Secretary of Russia's Security Council
Speaker 1: told a Russian newspaper recently that the risk of quote
Speaker 1: unquote accidental nuclear war breaking out has risen sharply. Some
Speaker 1: of the factors mentioned were the health of Defense Sectory
Speaker 1: Lloyd Austin, as well as Joe Biden's cognitive decline.
Speaker 2: How do you read that? Do they want that out there?
Speaker 2: Does that mean anything?
Speaker 3: And okay, it does, it definitely does. Here's what Putin
Speaker 3: means and just again, or rather patrushev right, So it
Speaker 3: doesn't mean that Putin is getting ready to launch a nuke,
Speaker 3: especially in the United States. The only reason, like I
Speaker 3: said earlier, that would happen. So we talked about hyperstonics.
Speaker 3: Now when it comes to nukes, the Russian doctrine calls
Speaker 3: for the use of tactical nukes in the event let's
Speaker 3: say that Putin word to lose Ukraine or like we
Speaker 3: were to try to retake Crimea. That's the that's the
Speaker 3: case scenario. But what Patrusha likely meant was this, As
Speaker 3: everybody is already aware, Iran is in a shadow war
Speaker 3: against our country. I mean, they've launched close to two
Speaker 3: hundred attacks right now on US forces, causing brain damage
Speaker 3: to our personnel. And so why and yet the Biden
Speaker 3: administration has conducted only pinprick attacks, not even on Iran,
Speaker 3: that is the center of gravity for all of that mainness,
Speaker 3: but only on Iranian process the who sings. So Biden
Speaker 3: has not established what we call escalation control dominance. None
Speaker 3: of our strikes have really deterred Iranians. Why is that?
Speaker 3: The reason in my intelligence assessment is this around is
Speaker 3: dangerously close to operationalizing their nuclear capability. How Uh well,
Speaker 3: there there are various schools of godenness. One of the assessments, uh,
Speaker 3: a very credible assessment says that it's within It was
Speaker 3: like several weeks ago. It was within a week. So
Speaker 3: for all intents and purposes, I do not rely the
Speaker 3: possibility that they do have already a viable nuclear weapon
Speaker 3: and within a month they will be capable of producing
Speaker 3: I believe. Let me see if I can remember this
Speaker 3: six warheads, right, I think they have sufficient weapons grade
Speaker 3: uranium to both six warheads and then in five months twelve. Right,
Speaker 3: compared to Russia, which has six thousand nuclear weapons, it's nothing.
Speaker 3: But you only need a couple to read have a
Speaker 3: right and once And on top of that, the Iranians
Speaker 3: just launched a satellite called Soraya that went into the
Speaker 3: highest orbit ever. Right, and this is what the capability
Speaker 3: that they use. You have to have a heavy leaf
Speaker 3: capability in order to launch in a CBM and intercontinental missile. Right,
Speaker 3: So they're developing those capabilities rapidly. And on top of that,
Speaker 3: Iran and Russia are now allied, and Russia is the
Speaker 3: world's leader in space launch. Russia is the world's leader
Speaker 3: in nuclear nohow, Russia's nuclear arsenal even beats ours, especially
Speaker 3: when it comes to tactical nukes. And so, uh, this
Speaker 3: is why Iran is very arrogant right now. And and
Speaker 3: once it does have nuclear weapons, it's going to be
Speaker 3: almost impossible to compel them to stop this low grade
Speaker 3: uh destabilization and shadow war on our country.
Speaker 1: You know, I know you previously have said that, you know,
Speaker 1: Russia is not suicidal when it comes to nuclear weapons,
Speaker 1: is iron.
Speaker 3: Iran is a different character, uh, Lisa, Russia is not
Speaker 3: driven by ideology. Putin is is a realist. Uh, He's
Speaker 3: a rational human being. He just simply wants to make
Speaker 3: sure that Russia has its strategic security perima because with
Speaker 3: the collapse of the same that union, the distance between
Speaker 3: NATO and Russia has reduced from one thousand miles to
Speaker 3: one hundred miles. Right as I said before, no say
Speaker 3: Mility commander would allow this type of proximity to risk.
Speaker 3: So Pudines is not amendment but the Ayad told us
Speaker 3: they are driven by completely different ideology. They are fanatics,
Speaker 3: and if you read any of the writings, you know
Speaker 3: they've said it many, many, many times that the United
Speaker 3: States is anathema. It's basically the devil. We are the
Speaker 3: big devil in Israel as the little devil in quotes,
Speaker 3: and they would stop at nothing to drive the United
Speaker 3: States out of the Middle East. But even more frighteningly, Lisa,
Speaker 3: than nukes is the fact that our audience have been developing,
Speaker 3: according to US intelligence assessment, networks within US homeland. Okay,
Speaker 3: why do you think we pay millions of dollars and
Speaker 3: provide security to might compare on some of his former
Speaker 3: Trump administration staff who were working against Iran. It's because
Speaker 3: they are being targeted. And now that our border is
Speaker 3: completely wide open, Iran, as well as Russia and China
Speaker 3: have been flowing thousands of intelligence operatives into the country
Speaker 3: so that the sleeper cells when the time comes, they
Speaker 3: can activate them. And that is the most frightening thing
Speaker 3: to me. The nukes, yes, it is frightening, But if
Speaker 3: our missile defense system cannot protect us from twelve nukes,
Speaker 3: you know that around will will have in five months,
Speaker 3: let's just say then, what good it is? You know,
Speaker 3: then we might as well just pack up and go home,
Speaker 3: right because Russia has six thousand. So I would be
Speaker 3: more concerned right now about the internal threat. And this
Speaker 3: is why Christopher Ray, the f VI director, recently basically
Speaker 3: suggested that it's not a matter of if, but when
Speaker 3: there will be another terrorist attack.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: And it's sad because you know, we did it to
Speaker 1: ourselves with open borders, and it didn't have to be
Speaker 1: that way, and it wasn't that way before. And you know,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden his administration shows this path that they've now
Speaker 1: put us on, and you know, there'll probably be repercussions
Speaker 1: as you just painted the picture for us, We've got
Speaker 1: to go to commercial sit tight. How incahoots are Iran,
Speaker 1: Russia in China? You know, obviously they're each looking to
Speaker 1: destabilize different regions of the world and to you know,
Speaker 1: conquer more territory or at least you know, attack enemies
Speaker 1: like Iran has been doing with Israel v uh their proxies.
Speaker 1: How much coordination do you think is going behind the
Speaker 1: scenes with those countries.
Speaker 3: Sure, I'll address the Russia China relationship. First, it is
Speaker 3: not a true strategic alliance the way that Putin and
Speaker 3: GMP one of portray uh their partners. But they're more
Speaker 3: like of a marriage of convenience. What drives them is
Speaker 3: they're like a lot of marriages, so so they are.
Speaker 3: What unites them is their hostility towards the United States
Speaker 3: and the perception that the United States is their threat
Speaker 3: number one, but in reality Russia perceives China as threat
Speaker 3: number two? Why is that? And alluded to that although
Speaker 3: you kind of had to be uh, have to be
Speaker 3: able to read between the lines when he said what
Speaker 3: he talked and talk about it was very interesting to me. Uh.
Speaker 3: Putin dominated the most of the discussion, and he was
Speaker 3: very relaxed and and very kind of full of himself.
Speaker 3: But the one question that Putin visibly got really not angry,
Speaker 3: but I could tell like his entire demeanor has changed
Speaker 3: and he got kind out close to Taka's space is
Speaker 3: when the question that asked was about China, and Putin
Speaker 3: UH basically said, China is has been developing economically and
Speaker 3: nearly tarily by leaps and bands and I'm paraphrasing. He
Speaker 3: didn't use that specific words, but and so China is
Speaker 3: even a bigger threat to the United States than Russia.
Speaker 3: And there are two schools of that are not an
Speaker 3: intelligence community. But that is the reason uh why Putin,
Speaker 3: as he told Tuka for years, try to uh be friends,
Speaker 3: if you will, with NATO and with the West. To
Speaker 3: the point ways well Clinton, whether Russia could join NATO,
Speaker 3: it is because they wanted to offset the China threat.
Speaker 3: Russia has a huge border with China. The Chinese are
Speaker 3: acutely aware that uh the economy trump Russia's economy, and
Speaker 3: they've been infiltrating uh their population uh to the far
Speaker 3: eastern border to Russia. Right, because Russia has a lot
Speaker 3: of natural resources and and China doesn't, or China that
Speaker 3: has different resources. Right. So in that sense, they don't
Speaker 3: have a specific very tight coordination. But if let's say,
Speaker 3: uh they want to challenge the US and the two
Speaker 3: theater war, they could coordinate that, right Uh. China attacks Taiwan,
Speaker 3: Russia is writing up the ante in Ukraine. We're already
Speaker 3: spread out. Then you know that they could do. But
Speaker 3: it's not like their bodies and they share intelligence and
Speaker 3: they trust each other. Iran is a different story with Russia.
Speaker 3: And Russia right now is flowing assistance both from China
Speaker 3: and from Iran to help them prosecute the campaign UH
Speaker 3: in Ukraine. And so again they don't coordinate tightly with Iran,
Speaker 3: but if they can stage something that would challenge the
Speaker 3: United States spread our resources even and unbalanced Washington, that
Speaker 3: they could do. And clearly, all of these foreign annastories,
Speaker 3: they're acutely aware of President Biden's cognitive and mental decline,
Speaker 3: and that could embolden somebody like Aroan to pop a
Speaker 3: nuke in order to discorient us even further.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of articles recently about how Ukraine is
Speaker 1: struggling to counter Russia's advances on the battlefield on land,
Speaker 1: but they're having success at sea with things like naval drones.
Speaker 1: What does that mean for the broader war in Ukraine
Speaker 1: and where does that stand today?
Speaker 3: So the war is right now in a deadlog basically,
Speaker 3: and my analysis has always been and it remains that
Speaker 3: there's no military path to victory for Ukraine. It is
Speaker 3: simply mathematically impossible. And the reason being is Russian military.
Speaker 3: Despite all the propaganda that you hear from the Washington
Speaker 3: establishment and the legacy media, Russia is considered by the
Speaker 3: Pentagon as a near peer competitor. It has the second
Speaker 3: best military in the world, right and so they also
Speaker 3: have the population three times more than Ukraine. The Russians
Speaker 3: have about between one hundred and forty three and one
Speaker 3: fifty right now million. Ukrainians have forty three million. Right.
Speaker 3: So the war of attrition is what Putin is waging
Speaker 3: right now, and you can fight until the last Ukrainian
Speaker 3: And right now the average age of Ukrainian soldier is
Speaker 3: forty three and its rising. And the health of Ukrainian
Speaker 3: men is very different than than Americans, let's say. And
Speaker 3: so Ukrainians are almost out of AMMO there rationing AMMAL
Speaker 3: right now, the front lines have not really changed like
Speaker 3: in the past year. I think less than maybe five
Speaker 3: miles or so, I need to double check has changed hands.
Speaker 3: So it's just the killing is continuing. The Ukrainian land
Speaker 3: is now devastated. Ukraine is ceasing to exist as a
Speaker 3: viable country because we are providing not only weaponry, but
Speaker 3: also we're providing salaries to their civilian personnel, to the
Speaker 3: entire government, right tensions, et cetera. And so after we
Speaker 3: cut off our aid, if the aid is not approved.
Speaker 3: Ukraine is basically on the verge of collapse. Its critical
Speaker 3: infrastructure is destroyed, it's agricultural base is demolished, and the
Speaker 3: country is depopulated a quarter of a million, almost a
Speaker 3: quarter of a million. It's approaching the number of dead
Speaker 3: or severely wounded Ukrainian man is the casualty toll. And
Speaker 3: I think Joe Biden has the Ukrainians blood on his
Speaker 3: hands by just prolonging, prolonging this war. And it's the
Speaker 3: biggest tragedy.
Speaker 1: You know, there's obviously a funding fight on Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: about money going to Ukraine. Well, more money and weapons
Speaker 1: changed the outcome for Ukraine, because you know, that's the
Speaker 1: argument that a lot of people are making right now.
Speaker 3: Absolutely not. I mean, look, we have already provided or
Speaker 3: committed to provide on the of two hundred billion. What
Speaker 3: do you think another sixty or however many billion will
Speaker 3: do that two hundred didn't do. And on top of that,
Speaker 3: we don't have the production capacity to continue pumping out
Speaker 3: military hardware to supply to Ukraine, right, and neither do
Speaker 3: the Europeans and so But put on the other hand,
Speaker 3: like I said, he transitioned to his economy on the
Speaker 3: what I'm putting in about twenty fifteen, and they have
Speaker 3: no problem producing these kinetic military hardware that is required.
Speaker 3: And now, what he also demonstrated with the recent launch
Speaker 3: this kaypersonic missile is that Ukrainians air defenses are going
Speaker 3: to have a very hard time with the wistard corn
Speaker 3: And basically putting his signaling right now is that it's
Speaker 3: time to come to the negotiating table because for all
Speaker 3: intents and purposes, this war is already done. It's ended.
Speaker 3: Ukraine has lost, Russia has won by virtue of having
Speaker 3: a different definition of victory. Put in, his definition of victory
Speaker 3: was redline of Ukraine being part of NATO. He has
Speaker 3: achieved that because as long as Ukraine is divided, there's
Speaker 3: no Turtle integrity and there's an ongoing military operations, it
Speaker 3: is not eligible. And so no matter how long, and
Speaker 3: he can sustain this war for a long time because
Speaker 3: he just increased his defense budget seventy percent from twenty
Speaker 3: twenty three to twenty twenty four. He also is mobelizing
Speaker 3: one hundred and seventy additional true to the maximum total
Speaker 3: of about a million point seven and so he has
Speaker 3: tremendous industrial militia economic capacity to continue, and Ukraine is
Speaker 3: on the verge of collapse, and so no additional billions, unfortunately,
Speaker 3: are not gonna help Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Are you surprised that Ukraine's been able to hang on
Speaker 1: this long? Is this longer than you anticipated?
Speaker 3: It is longer that I anticipated. But what I didn't
Speaker 3: anticipate is that the United States would provide this level
Speaker 3: of weaponry to Ukraine, because I could have never anticipated
Speaker 3: that we would deplete our own reference arsenal to dangerous
Speaker 3: levels like that, because right now, the production the timeline
Speaker 3: for replant sing for some of these weapons systems javelins,
Speaker 3: for example, is between eight and seventeen years. So no,
Speaker 3: I would never anticipate that we would do such a thing,
Speaker 3: And that is the only reason Ukraine was able to prevail,
Speaker 3: you know, in addition to the fact that they've been really,
Speaker 3: really valiant fighters, and Zelenski did not capitulate in the
Speaker 3: very beginning, as Putin anticipated. So many people, including Pudin
Speaker 3: and many intelligence analysts, were surprised by how good Ukraine
Speaker 3: was able to hold on.
Speaker 1: So does that mean that they could surprise US further
Speaker 1: and be able to expel Russia.
Speaker 3: I don't believe. So they simply don't have the manpower.
Speaker 3: I mean, there's no like I said, said the average
Speaker 3: age is forty three now and Ukrainian intelligence services are
Speaker 3: hunting for people. They literally grab people off the street.
Speaker 3: Talking about democracy. That's another you know hoax that the
Speaker 3: media and the deep state propagated here is saying that
Speaker 3: Ukraine is a democracy. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Speaker 3: But so, no, they don't have the main power, they
Speaker 3: don't have the required Notary Hidhware, Biden never provided. He
Speaker 3: just provided enough weaponry for to Ukraine to virtues signal
Speaker 3: that he's doing something. But he never provided a sufficient
Speaker 3: amount for Ukraine to win. And there's a very specific
Speaker 3: reason for that. If he did provide, that Putin would
Speaker 3: bring war home to the United States, right, So Biden
Speaker 3: knew that. Again, Biden was briefed on all of that,
Speaker 3: you know, Russian world writing strategy prudence, how Putin is
Speaker 3: holding US homeland at risk, whether it's cyber, whether it's hypersonics,
Speaker 3: space weapons, you name it, and a lot of other
Speaker 3: like non kinetic means. And so Biden knew that Ukraine
Speaker 3: could never win. The reason, the real reason, Lisa, why
Speaker 3: the Europeans and the Washington establishment continue or wanted to
Speaker 3: provide a weaponry is to weaken Russia's military potential because
Speaker 3: because the Europeans never provided for their own defense. Think
Speaker 3: about this, Only eleven countries right now, eleven NATAL members
Speaker 3: out of thirty one pay or even on track to
Speaker 3: pay two percent of their gross domestic product towards the defense.
Speaker 3: So they basically have been freeloading on us. And then
Speaker 3: they decided that they're just going to use Ukrainians as
Speaker 3: me to throw in Putin's meat grind. This is why
Speaker 3: Boris Johnson went to Kiev right several months after the
Speaker 3: invasion and talked Zelenski out of negotiating with Russia. It's
Speaker 3: because both the United States and Needle wanted to weaken
Speaker 3: the Russian capability. But that is deeply, deeply, you know, immoral,
Speaker 3: because as I said, quarto over million of Ukrainian men
Speaker 3: are are now out of commission.
Speaker 2: Before we go.
Speaker 1: What kind of end deal and the war deal do
Speaker 1: you think Putin would be amenable to or would actually
Speaker 1: agreed to.
Speaker 3: Point yes, So here's my analysis on that. So Putin
Speaker 3: clearly wants to negotiate. It's very clear from Tekkausm's interviews,
Speaker 3: but it's not going to be a cake walk for us.
Speaker 3: In the beginning of this war, or like a few
Speaker 3: months into it, my assessment was that Wudn't could just
Speaker 3: be happy with the twenty percent that that that he
Speaker 3: got right, and but now he feels emboldened. My analysis
Speaker 3: is that he wants to settle on his terms, which
Speaker 3: would be Primeer will remain Russian, and he would want
Speaker 3: the West to recognize premiers Russian. The twenty percent that
Speaker 3: of the Dombas, the bar he uh annexed, they want
Speaker 3: that too, but they also want to RECOGNI. They want
Speaker 3: the West to recognize them legally, like legally bound agreement
Speaker 3: not to allow Ukraine to be part of Natal. So
Speaker 3: he wants those guarantees and probably the removal of the sanctions.
Speaker 3: My assessment is that none of it is acceptable to
Speaker 3: Washington or to Brussels, and so therefore the war will
Speaker 3: likely continue.
Speaker 2: Well, that's.
Speaker 1: Sad to hear. Rebecca Coefler. Appreciate you taking the time
Speaker 1: to come on the show and bring all this insight
Speaker 1: to us. Always fascinating stuff. I always learned so much
Speaker 1: from you. I really appreciate you making the time for us.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, Lisa. And if I may mention
Speaker 3: my new newsletter for independent thinkers that I launched. It
Speaker 3: is cut to thenews Dot. Go to this website and subscribe.
Speaker 3: Every morning you will receive an email newsletter that is
Speaker 3: meant for conservatives and independence thinkers. It is free of bias.
Speaker 1: Well there you go, guys, go sign up for that. Rebecca,
Speaker 1: appreciate you making the time. Really do you always learn
Speaker 1: so much?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Thank you Lisa. That was Rebecca Koffler.
Speaker 1: Appreciate her taking the time to bring her insight and
Speaker 1: her background to talk about all this stuff. Obviously a
Speaker 1: lot going on in the world, so always good to
Speaker 1: hear someone's insight who has an expertise in the matter.
Speaker 1: I want to thank you guys at home for listening
Speaker 1: every Monday and Thursday, but of course you can listen
Speaker 1: throughout the week. Also want to thank John Cassio and
Speaker 1: my producer for putting the show together.
Speaker 2: Until next time,