Transcription
Why, why would you believe anything that President Trump says anymore? I mean, I got to be frank with you. Uh, he said so many things. We can go back to, "I can end the war on a phone call," right? You know, pick your choice. You know, "I'm going to end the civilization overnight." All these threats. Uh, [clears throat]. And, I, it's just had a catastrophic impact on the nation's, uh, standing credibility. No one believes anything that comes out of Washington.
So, I, you know, I'm one of these people that really doesn't think we'll end up with an agreement. We had the opportunity with the MOU. [clears throat]. Obviously, it wasn't something that Trump liked because it did not, uh, represent a capitulation to him personally. But, it was a non-offering. It was his best shot at getting out. It's gone. So, I don't think you're ever going to see any sort of agreement per se reached. I think the war will peter out at some point. We'll disengage. We'll go home. And after all, this is what I've been trying to tell people for years. What do we eventually do wherever we go? We just leave. We leave because we can. Because we're primarily an aerospace and naval power and we live in the Western Hemisphere. That's what we did after Vietnam and we'll do it in the Middle East and elsewhere as well.
Colonel, are there, uh, significant American voices among them, the former Supreme NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, thoughtlessly giving advice to the president which could drag us into World War III?
Uh, I can tell you without hesitation that General Joulwan or General Shalikashvili, who were both former, uh, Supreme Commanders at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, would never have ever suggested those things. If you listen to that discussion, it's very disturbing. Because the, the mindlessness, the failure to address the things over which you have no control, the unanticipated consequences, the probable human reactions to these things that would literally, literally precipitate a Third World War, uh, are completely absent. The only solution for us, because there is no military solution, is to end this. And if we did that, we could start a new elsewhere and chart a new course. That's what really needs to happen. And of course, the answer to that from these gentlemen, I think it was Kimmitt and Clark, both said, "Oh, no, you can't do that. We sacrificed everything."
Look, I started this discussion by pointing out that this fraudulent rules-based liberal international order is collapsing. It's gone. Forget it. And it rested on a foundation of two things that aren't true. Absolute US military supremacy. Wrong. The world has recovered. This is not 80 years ago. There are great powers now. India has substantial military power, has a fine navy, fine air force. Even Pakistan has armed itself with nuclear weapons and has a respectable [clears throat] air force and a good army. I can go down the list of all these countries. You know, Turkey is in its own right a great power in the region. And now we see that Iran is, and that's only going to get stronger. We're, we're not in a position anymore to bully people. We need to get out of that business. We need to cooperate because the entire economic dimension is operating against us. China is moving into gold-backed currency. Uh, that's not a small matter. That's not something that we can perform overnight. The yuan is now increasingly replacing the petrodollar. Money is not being recirculated through New York City. Everything is changing. We need to adapt. You don't adapt by blowing the world up. You don't adapt by simply doubling down on failure. Yet that's exactly what was, uh, suggested. I don't see any evidence that the German or the British deputy, uh, supreme commanders and chiefs of staff that I worked with would recommend such a course of action.
Colonel, uh, we know the United States is a cobelligerent, uh, with Ukraine against Russia. Are the Chinese and Russians cobelligerents with Iran against the United States?
Yeah, I think so. Uh, I, I don't think they would deny that. They would simply point out, "Well, what have you been doing to us for years?" And under the circumstances, we're trying to build this thing called BRICS. You've picked one of the top members of BRICS, one of the critical elements of this One Belt One Road project, the project to effectively network and integrate Eurasia into a commercial enterprise that will move goods and services very quickly back and forth across the continent from Rochefort on the Atlantic, uh, seaboard in France all the way to Shanghai. And, uh, they're not going to stand by and let us destroy it. I mean, this is something that we said from the very beginning. You know, if your intention ultimately turns out to be to destroy Iran, and I think that's where we are, uh, that's what the Israelis certainly want. It's not going to work because the Russians and the Chinese won't permit it. So, yes, I, I think they would say clearly that, and I would say one step further, if there are suddenly nuclear weapons employed in any of this, they will become involved. And the people that keep talking about World War will get their wish. I don't think it's necessary and I think we can avoid it. But this is where people start talking about these conflicts merging into one. Well, if you're dumb enough to do that and you're, and you're not prepared for it, it's eminently clear that we are not. You know, where the, the deficiencies in missiles and munitions that we've got now, judge, go all the way back to the first or, rather, the, the Bush presidency in 2001. You know, there's been mismanagement of that usage on a scale that was unnecessary and more important, a shift of, of funds in allocating resources into the ground force to fight these little wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while the Navy and the Air Force were the bill payers. Well, it's all come back to haunt us. We're not ready for a major war. That's another reason why this needs to end. And I'm sure at some point somebody's told this truth to President Trump.
But if, if Ukraine is eviscerated and divided up amongst these several countries, parts of what are now Ukraine will be in NATO.
Well, that presupposes that NATO survives this war.
Right.
I think NATO is a zombie organization. You know, we, we, it's sort of a, a patient on life support. And every time the, the buzzer goes off and the heart stops, we pump more into it to try and keep it going. The same thing is true for London and Paris, but it's over. It's done. And I think increasingly, and this is part of the whole collapse of this phony rules-based order, which is nothing but American military economic hegemony. People are realizing in all of these countries that we can't protect them. They have to protect themselves. They have to find their own way forward. That's what's happened in the Gulf. Iran, that no one expected to demonstrate this, has demonstrated everything that the Russians have already done in Eastern Ukraine. And the Russians are quite capable of doing it on a continental basis. So, what's the answer? Are you going to be dumb, stupid, foolish like the Finns or the Swedes and invite Americans to put nuclear weapons on your soil and aim them at Russia? Or are you going to say, "No. That's not the answer. I can defend myself. I can make it too costly for anybody to invade my country," which is what the Iranians have demonstrated. But, I'm going to find a way forward with the people there, my neighbors. I'm going to live with them.
Right.
And I think they'll live with me. That's where we're headed. This whole NATO business is, is a sham.
All right, I want to get, I want to get to Iran, but before we do, I have to ask you about General Surovikin. I mean, normally we in the West wouldn't care or even [clears throat] know who the various Russian generals are. Is there significance to his sort of rehabilitation and reassignment?
Oh, yes. Remember, [clears throat] and you're right about rehabilitation. He got himself into serious trouble with, uh, President Putin because he spoke out publicly in support of the criticism that Prigozhin, uh, the man that basically emptied the prisons, reorganized the prisoners to fight for Russia in return for their freedom in places like Bakhmut, which were terrible bloodbaths. And he succeeded, but they, they lost serious, uh, human life in the process. And Prigozhin said, "Look, we need to get this over with. We need to smash these people. Why aren't we attacking?" and so forth. Well, that was fine for him to say in private, but he said it publicly and Surovikin, this is the man who is the architect of the ISR strike system in the strategic defense that was established that basically is operated like an unending meat grinder killing millions of Ukrainians. Uh, he spoke out and said, "You know, I agree. Big mistake."
Mhm.
So, he was removed. He was sent to Africa where he spent the last three years. By the way, he's [clears throat] done a great job in Africa. As anybody at Africom or, uh, Eucom or wherever will tell you, the Russians have moved in there and they have stabilized a lot of situations and helped numbers of clients who were trying to rid themselves basically of the French or us. And, uh, they've done it. So, now he's back and he's going to be put, I think, in charge of all the strike strategy and weapon systems and platforms.