NATO EXPANSION

Scott Horton: Who Started It?

• Provocation Argument:

• Horton acknowledges that Putin escalated the conflict in 2022 with an invasion but emphasizes that U.S. policies over decades provoked it.

• He argues that NATO’s eastward expansion after the Cold War, despite assurances to Russia, created the conditions for the war.

• Horton traces the origins to the policies of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, accusing them of lying to Russian leaders about NATO’s intentions.

• Historical Promises Broken:

• Horton cites promises from U.S. officials, including James Baker and Warren Christopher, to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, ensuring NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”

• He describes NATO expansion as a deliberate strategy to weaken Russia by exploiting its vulnerabilities post-Soviet Union.

Niall Ferguson: No Promises Made

• Rebuttal of NATO Assurances:

• Ferguson challenges Horton’s claim, citing that no binding commitment was ever made not to expand NATO.

• He recounts the February 1990 conversation between James Baker and Gorbachev but explains that President George H. W. Bush rejected the idea of limiting NATO, asserting U.S. victory in the Cold War.

• Ferguson dismisses Putin’s narrative that the West betrayed promises, labeling it as propaganda.

• Agency of Eastern Europe:

• He stresses that countries like Poland and the Baltic states actively sought NATO membership for security against potential Russian aggression.

Debate on NATO’s Role

Horton:

• Eastern Europe’s Desire vs. U.S. Interest:

• While acknowledging Eastern Europe’s desire to join NATO, Horton questions why the U.S. prioritized their interests over maintaining a stable relationship with Russia.

• He argues that NATO expansion served American political and defense industry interests, citing Lockheed Martin’s lobbying and the pursuit of Polish-American votes.

• Impact of NATO Actions:

• Horton points out that NATO’s involvement in Ukraine provoked Russian aggression, particularly after U.S. support for the 2014 Maidan Revolution.

• He cites the example of NATO’s involvement in Serbia to challenge claims of NATO being purely defensive.

Ferguson:

• NATO Enlargement Justified:

• Ferguson defends NATO expansion, emphasizing the security needs of Eastern European countries.

• He counters Horton by arguing that NATO enlargement did not provoke the 2022 invasion, pointing out that Russia tolerated earlier expansions until Ukraine and Georgia’s potential memberships were discussed.

• The 2014 Revolution:

• Ferguson rebuts Horton’s depiction of the 2014 events, framing them as a popular uprising against a corrupt regime, not a U.S.-backed coup.

NOTES

• Ferguson: Horton is arguing that those countries shouldn’t of joined NATO: Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania.
  • Horton says those countries wouldn’t of been invaded, begging the question, no threat
  • Ferguson shows that Russia is a threat pointing to Ukraine and Georgia
• NATO provides security, Horton disagrees
• Ferguson: Says Horton defends Yanukovych regime, it was popular because he was extremely corrupt. Horton said it was done by former SS Nazi officers (Russian Propaganda).
  • Horton calls it a red herring
• Horton says Yanukovych was not a Russian puppet, wanted to move to West
• Cable: 08MOSCOW265_a
  • Ukraine joining NATO will cause a war
• Condoleezza Rice gave a half-ass NATO offer to Ukraine
• Horton: Ukraine much more tied to Russia ethnically in the East compared to Latvia, Estonia etc..
• Kissinger changed his mind and wanted Ukraine to join NATO

Russia’s Motivations and Military Action

Horton:

• Putin’s Response to Threats:

• Horton asserts that Putin viewed NATO expansion and Western involvement in Ukraine as existential threats, prompting his actions in 2014 and 2022.

• He describes the buildup of Ukrainian military capabilities, supported by the U.S., as a key factor in Russia’s decision to invade.

Ferguson:

• Putin’s Fears of Democracy:

• Ferguson attributes Putin’s aggression to his fear of Ukraine becoming a democratic success, which could inspire dissent within Russia.

• He highlights Ukraine’s military improvements and the West’s failure to deter Russia as contributing factors.

Analysis of the Current War

Horton:

• Criticism of Prolonged War:

• Horton accuses the U.S. of deliberately prolonging the conflict to weaken Russia, sacrificing Ukrainian lives.

• He likens the situation to U.S. misadventures in Afghanistan and Vietnam, warning of similar outcomes.

Ferguson:

• Insufficient Western Aid:

• Ferguson criticizes Western aid as inadequate for Ukraine to secure a decisive victory, calling for more robust support earlier in the war.

• Korean War Analogy:

• Ferguson suggests the conflict may end in a stalemate, with Ukraine divided like the Koreas.

Notes

• If the East Ukraines are ethnic Russians and Russia had to come in to protect their human rights, why didn’t they welcome the Russians? Why did they fight them for every inch?
• Horton is unable to answer the question, “Should the U.S. helped Ukraine or just let Russia invade?” or “What should happen?”

Proposed Resolutions

Horton:

• Call for Negotiations:

• Horton advocates for immediate diplomacy to establish Ukraine’s neutrality and end hostilities.

• He criticizes the U.S.’s unwillingness to negotiate before the war, blaming it for exacerbating the conflict.

Ferguson:

• Strategic Diplomacy:

• Ferguson supports negotiations but warns that delays have strengthened Russia’s position, making favorable terms harder to achieve.

• Avoiding a “South Vietnam” Scenario:

• He emphasizes the need to ensure Ukraine’s security after the war to prevent future Russian aggression.

Closing Thoughts

• Moderator’s Question: Should the U.S. provide military and economic guarantees to Ukraine as part of a settlement?

• Horton: Opposes extensive U.S. guarantees, citing financial constraints and advocating for European-led security solutions.

• Ferguson: Warns that the U.S.’s strategic missteps have left Ukraine vulnerable and calls for smarter diplomacy moving forward.

Transcript

00:00 this is the brightest of red lines
00:02 Ukraine itself is the absolute touchiest
00:06 of issues I thought I didn’t realize n
00:08 Chi had changed his name to Scott hton
00:10 the goal here is to lock Russia into a
00:13 long-term engagement in Ukraine at the
00:16 expense of the people of Ukraine’s lives
00:19 in order to weaken Russia you know the
00:21 Staggering thing about this conversation
00:23 is your almost total ignorance of
00:25 Ukraine I’m really wondering why we’re
00:26 bothering having it it’s an integral
00:28 part of Russian propaganda it’s such a
01:31 cheap shot I’m so sick of this when I
01:33 was right about Iraq and you were wrong
01:34 about Iraq that was Saddam Hussein’s
01:36 propaganda that I was repeating and that
01:38 was MI6 and CIA propaganda that you were
01:41 repeating who was right about that one
01:42 Nile uh it’s pronounced
01:54 Neil welcome to the Zero Hedge debate
01:57 sponsored by JM Bullion I’m Peter
01:59 Robinson the murdog distinguished policy
01:01 fellow at the Hoover institution at
01:03 Stanford University for the next 60
01:05 minutes I will be moderating this debate
01:08 or at least strongly felt conversation
01:11 the director of the libertarian
01:12 Institute Scott Horton is a radio host
01:14 and author Scott’s most recent book
01:16 published this year provoked how
01:19 Washington started the new cold war with
01:21 Russia and the catastrophe in Ukraine
01:24 Scott welcome thank you very much great
01:27 Neil Ferguson is a historian and author
01:29 and like me a fellow at the Hoover
02:31 institution Neil’s most recent book
02:33 published in 2021 Doom the politics of
02:37 catastrophe two men with catastrophe in
02:40 your most recent titles this will be
02:41 cheerful Neil is currently working on
02:43 the second volume of his biography of
02:45 Henry Kissinger I should note that as
02:46 all the world learned when 60 Minutes
02:48 aired this past Sunday Neil is also a
02:51 trustee at the new University of Austin
02:54 in Texas our format the format I have in
02:58 mind object if you wish to either of you
02:60 write up to the top is simple and
02:02 conversational I’ll ask one or the other
02:04 of you a question giving you plenty of
02:06 time to reply once one or the other has
02:09 replied the other gets a chance to reply
02:12 in turn and then on to the next question
02:14 you should feel completely free to talk
02:16 to each other ask each other questions
02:19 if you start to talk over each other
02:20 I’ll intercede otherwise I’ll stay out
02:22 of it
02:23 fair sounds very fair very fair all
02:26 right three sentences of background in
02:29 2014 Russia annexed Crimea part of
03:32 Ukraine then in February 2022 Russia
03:35 invaded Ukraine moving not just on
03:37 Eastern Europe Ukraine but bombing sites
03:39 across the country and sending troops
03:41 all the way to the capital city of keev
03:44 the invasion failed but Russia has
03:46 occupied about one fifth of the
03:48 territory of Ukraine holding Crimea and
03:51 much of the donbas in eastern Ukraine
03:54 today it seems to me fair to say that
03:56 the conflict has settled into a war of
03:59 attrition for Scott Horton who started
03:04 it Scott uh you have condemned the
03:07 invasion of Ukraine uh but as you argue
03:10 in the title of your book it was
03:13 provoked I’ll come in a moment to the
03:15 detailed expansion of NATO step by step
03:17 and have you take us through that but if
03:19 you could give an overview statement of
03:22 the ways in which you believe Russia was
03:25 provoked well uh to go back to the way
03:28 you originally stated was who started
04:30 the point is that American policy has
04:33 made the answer to that question very
04:35 complicated and not just clear-cut so of
04:39 course no one’s denying that Putin and
04:41 his men made a decision well Putin
04:43 himself and his men obeying him made a
04:45 decision to escalate the war by 10,000%
04:49 in February of
04:50 2022 with a massive Invasion as I say a
04:54 cat a catastrophe for Ukraine since then
04:58 so there’s no question about what
04:59 happened there
04:00 and I frankly I don’t think there’s much
04:02 question that Russian forces were
04:04 involved in the Civil War after it broke
04:07 out in the summer of
04:08 2014 and uh a little bit later in early
04:12 2015 but now it’s a as you expanded the
04:16 question the antecedants right and this
04:18 is what the great historian Robert higs
04:20 said about World War II is they always
04:22 truncate the antecedants so my job is
04:25 going back and elongating them so the
04:28 book starts with HW Bush and the end of
05:30 the last Cold War and before Bill
05:33 Clinton ever came to town the plan
05:35 always was to expand NATO at Russia’s
05:38 expense but to lie to them to tell them
05:42 that we’re not going to expand NATO or
05:43 if we do it won’t matter because NATO
05:45 won’t be a military Alliance anymore
05:47 it’ll be a political organization we’re
05:49 going to create a new partnership for
05:51 peace and you and Ukraine will be in it
05:54 so Ukraine will be neutral and Russia
05:55 will be a full partner because there’s
05:57 no threat we don’t need an alliance all
05:59 we need is a security partnership
05:01 Arrangement and we’ll have a common
05:04 European home and everything will be
05:05 fine but they were lying all along they
05:07 knew that that was not the plan the plan
05:09 was always to use the csce and the
05:13 partnership for peace as a halfway house
05:16 essentially toward NATO membership they
05:20 knew they had to essentially shine uh
05:22 yelton on gorbachov and then yelon on by
05:26 they but when you say they knew you’re
05:28 talking about successive American
05:29 administ
06:30 correct well even in the HW Bush
06:32 Administration they began um knowing
06:35 that they would have to let the Russians
06:37 believe that we as as the Bush’s solemn
06:41 promise we will not take advantage of
06:44 your withdrawal from Eastern Europe okay
06:47 could I could I pause pause you there
06:48 because I’ll come right back to you
06:50 because this detailed this detailed
06:52 history which ad each Administration
06:54 successively expanding NATO we have to
06:56 go into that I’ll return to you but Neil
06:58 the overall the
06:00 we have Scott has given us his theme
06:03 what’s
06:04 yours well let’s just dismiss the notion
06:09 that there was a promise not to enlarge
06:13 NATO shall we uh this
06:16 originates in a
06:19 conversation that Jim Baker had with mik
06:23 gorbachov in February 1990 just after
06:27 the fall of the Berlin
06:28 wall and in that
07:31 conversation uh Baker asked would you
07:35 prefer to see a United Germany outside
07:37 of NATO independent and with no US
07:40 forces or would you prefer a un unified
07:42 Germany to be tied to Nato with
07:45 assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction
07:46 would not shift one inch Eastward from
07:48 its present position Baker’s words
07:51 correct gorbachov said that he would
07:53 prefer the latter Baker seemed to agree
07:57 but when he went back to DC
07:00 uh secretary Baker was given an earful
07:04 by President George H W bush who said to
07:07 hell with that we prevailed and they
07:10 didn’t we can’t let the Soviets clutch
07:13 Victory from the jaws of defeat and that
07:16 was the end of not one inch so when
07:21 Putin as he repeatedly has claimed says
07:25 that there was a promise that isn’t
07:27 actually that isn’t actually good
07:29 history
08:31 history if I may finish it was something
08:34 that Baker discussed with gorbachov but
08:36 never became the policy of the Bush
08:39 Administration because Bush never for
08:40 one second count countenanced it
08:43 secondly and this is the thing that
08:46 um people like Scott tend to miss there
08:51 are other actors in the drama besides
08:55 Russia and the United States the former
08:59 uh Warsaw pack members and Soviet
08:03 republics had an interest and agency too
08:08 and they wanted to be in NATO they did
08:11 not want some uh alternative security
08:16 arrangement for the very good reason
08:19 that they understood left fora for
08:22 example the Polish leader that anything
08:25 less than NATO would not give them
08:28 security so this the reality that the
09:31 countries that joined NATO were not
09:34 forced into it by the United States they
09:37 wanted to join NATO and the United
09:39 States was not really in a position to
09:41 decline their requests there was of
09:43 course a heat of debate at the time uh
09:47 there were those uh George Kennan for
09:49 example who argued that NATO enlargement
09:51 was a mistake but it was the policy of
09:54 the US government of success of
09:56 presidents beginning with George HW Bush
09:58 and crucially to my mind it was what the
09:00 Central and East Europeans wanted Scott
09:04 back to you could we so can I address
09:08 what he just said there real quick yeah
09:09 of course of course sure okay so on the
09:11 last point no one ever argued that
09:14 America forced the Eastern European
09:16 countries to join of course they wanted
09:17 to join the question was why would
09:19 America do what they wanted instead of
09:22 what was good for America’s national
09:24 interest which was as Kenan and Buchanan
09:27 and so many others waren at the time was
09:29 making sure that our relationship with
10:30 Moscow was copesthetic who cares about
10:33 Warsaw what matters is that we get along
10:36 with the Russians for the long term and
10:39 they’re sacrificing that much more
10:41 important long-term good for the
10:44 short-term uh interests including what
10:48 the Eastern European nations wanted but
10:49 on the previous Point pardon me but that
10:51 is just bad history yes you’re right
10:54 about the one meeting between Baker and
10:56 gorbachov on February the 9th but there
10:59 were numerous meetings and I demonstrate
10:01 this in my book I have 7,800 citations
10:05 and including hundreds on this topic
10:07 where this all began in Malta when H W
10:11 bush promised gorbachov himself the
10:13 president promised we will not take
10:15 advantage of your withdrawal at all that
10:19 was it and Jack Matlock the second to
10:21 last ambassador to the United uh to the
10:23 USSR has explained that including
10:25 personally to me that that was all-
10:28 encompassing and you mention others
10:29 involved how about genter how about
11:32 Robert Gates made the same promise to
11:34 the head of the
11:35 KGB the same day that Baker was making
11:38 that offer to gorbachov and how about
11:40 the fact that genter who was the foreign
11:42 foreign minister of Germany West Germany
11:45 just as much a partner in all this
11:47 repeatedly vowed that NATO would not
11:49 expand not only into Eastern Germany but
11:51 to Any Nation east of Germany either and
11:54 in the final treaty that they did sign
11:57 what they did was they came up with
11:58 because you’re right Bush said that
11:00 Baker’s plan made no sense how can you
11:02 bring Germany into NATO but not or
11:05 reunify Germany but not have East
11:08 Germany into NATO even just as a
11:10 sentence it doesn’t make sense so what
11:12 they decided was of course East Germany
11:13 will be part of NATO but we promised not
11:15 to expand any of our military presence
11:18 into the former gdr now if the deal
11:21 always was that of course we can bring
11:23 Poland and the baltics into NATO next
11:25 and put bases there then why would it
11:28 matter if we were allowed to put troops
12:30 in eastern Germany the entire and and
12:34 pardon me one more thing the the the
12:36 entire discussion and this is shown by
12:38 Scholars like uh shiffon and Sarat and
12:41 others it was the promises that genter
12:45 and and Baker made to gorbachov that it
12:48 was based on those promises that he
12:51 decided to allow
12:53 reunification it was uh and and Mary
12:56 Elis Sarat proves this better than
12:57 anyone in her book not one inch as soon
12:60 as he said well of course I guess that’s
12:02 up to you they pounced didn’t matter
12:04 that it wasn’t in a treaty it was just
12:07 his spoken word that said okay I guess
12:08 we’ll allow reunification and they went
12:10 for it and it was based on these solemn
12:13 vows that we will not take advantage and
12:17 again they lied and they said repeatedly
12:20 that they’re going to turn NATO into a
12:22 political organization sort of like the
12:24 EU plus America but we’re going to
12:27 replace it as a military instit ution
13:30 with the CCE and later the partnership
13:33 for peace and that was to deceive under
13:37 Bush and under Bill Clinton they said
13:39 that to the Russians to get them to
13:41 acques when they knew all along the plan
13:44 was to expand the military Alliance
13:46 right up to their border that’s the real
13:48 history of what happened there
13:49 sir uh okay boys we spent 10 minutes on
13:53 this first question but on the other
13:55 hand the first question is a
13:56 tremendously important one
13:59 ation took place at a minimum Scott
13:02 Scott has laid this out Neil has grants
13:05 readily grants the conversation between
13:07 James Baker and Gorbachev saying not one
13:10 inch Eastward so Neil what if if the
13:14 United States there are two questions
13:17 honestly Scott if we were lying why were
13:19 we lying why were we acting in other
13:21 than our interest what motive do you
13:22 ascribe but you get to that second first
13:24 I want to come to Neil at JM bullan
13:27 excellent service and competitive
13:28 pricing aren’t just goals they’re our
14:30 standard our commitment to customer
14:32 discretion and privacy with secure and
14:35 confidential transactions has earned us
14:37 an unparalleled reputation as an online
14:40 retailer of precious metals backed by
14:42 over 375,000 reviews averaging 4.8 out
14:46 of five stars only at JM Bullion Neil
14:50 did we intentionally mislead or even
14:54 inadvertently mislead Gorbachev and then
14:57 yelson well there was uh succession of
14:01 of conversations uh no commitment was
14:05 ever made uh not to expand NATO and
14:10 indeed when the issue came up during
14:14 Boris yelton’s
14:16 presidency uh President Clinton
14:19 explicitly said that the uh inclusion of
14:22 Estonia L and Lithuania the Baltic uh
14:26 former Soviet
14:27 republics would be
14:30 uh something that Russia would be
15:33 compensated for with uh membership of
15:37 Western institutions including the group
15:39 of seven so there was nothing mous or
15:42 secretive about what was being discussed
15:46 Russia was that was this was in the mid
15:49 1990s and in that conversation as in all
15:53 the conversations that are relevant here
15:55 which as you say Mary serot describes in
15:57 her book while there was a a debate
15:60 within Washington and a debate within
15:02 Europe about the wisdom of including uh
15:06 the East European countries in NATO
15:09 there was never any commitment any
15:11 binding commitment on the part of the
15:14 United States not to do it and I think
15:17 uh in a sense this is all somewhat be
15:20 beside the
15:22 point because
15:24 ultimately uh NATO enlargement as it
15:28 unfolded
15:30 was not strongly resisted by Russia
16:34 until the issues of Georgia and Ukraine
16:39 arose uh which is much later at the 2008
16:43 NATO conference in
16:45 Bucharest so we kind of don’t want to
16:48 waste too much time on the parts of NATO
16:51 enlargement that the Russians didn’t
16:52 seriously
16:54 contest because those enlargements were
16:57 not the cause or origin of the war even
16:02 in Russian propaganda we’re not dealing
16:05 with the war in Eastern Europe now
16:06 because
16:08 Lithuania uh lvia uh and Estonia join
16:11 NATO the reason that there’s a war in
16:14 Eastern Europe now is that the Russians
16:17 claim uh that the inclusion of Ukraine
16:20 in NATO was a kazus belly so Neil put
16:23 let me put a similar question but
16:27 different since the war in Ukraine began
17:30 these are the latest statistics I was
17:32 able to find scouring the web the
17:34 Russians have lost 120,000 dead and half
17:37 a million wounded and according to a
17:40 spokesman for hour for the American
17:41 defense department quote Russian losses
17:44 in just the first year of the war
17:47 exceeded the total of all Soviet losses
17:49 since the since the second world war
17:53 combined what was Putin what is Putin
17:57 thinking
17:59 make his motives make this action
17:01 comprehensible to us what does he think
17:04 he’s
17:06 doing well first of all it’s simply not
17:10 the case that all of these Russian
17:13 soldiers lost their lives to say nothing
17:16 of the many ukrainians the Russians have
17:19 killed we don’t know exactly how many
17:21 but it’s certainly in the tens and
17:23 possibly hundreds of thousands did not
17:26 die because of NATO enlargement let’s be
17:29 clear about that because that’s a red
18:31 herring and it’s uh I think uh an
18:35 integral part of Russian propaganda we
18:37 should be skeptical of that
18:39 argument the
18:41 reasons if you’ll let me finish
18:44 everything you say is Cia propaganda
18:46 then if if the other side of the story
18:47 is All Russian propt I’ll come back to
18:51 you it’s such a cheap shot I’m so sick
18:53 of this yeah every time when I when I
18:55 was right about Iraq and you were wrong
18:57 about Iraq that was Saddam Hussein’s
18:59 propaganda that I was repeating and that
18:01 was MI6 and CIA propaganda that you were
18:03 repeating who was right about that one
18:05 Nile should we uh it’s pronounced Neil
18:09 back what the question I’ll come back I
18:12 was Hussein’s
18:15 propaganda we’re we’re on Ukraine we’re
18:17 on Ukraine and Neil’s talking go ahead
18:19 Neil if you could let me try to answer
18:21 the question that Peter
18:23 put Putin regarded Ukraine talk faster
18:27 you’re wasting time
18:29 perhaps you could learn some manners
19:31 Scott and we could get
19:33 further Putin regarded a democratic
19:36 independent Ukraine and Ukraine had been
19:38 recognized an independent state since
19:40 the breakup of the Soviet Union 1991 as
19:43 a major threat to his regime why because
19:47 a Ukraine as successful as Poland would
19:50 be an advertisement that there was an
19:52 alternative way uh to the way that he
19:55 intended to lead Russia uh the Russian
19:58 Federation after he came to
19:00 power and there was a military Dimension
19:03 to the threat too in
19:07 2014 uh Putin snuffed out a nationalist
19:12 Uprising against a corrupt president in
19:15 Ukraine Ann next Crimea and created many
19:18 puppet states in the donbass the problem
19:22 with this operation was that it created
19:24 an unsustainable position from a Russian
19:26 perspective Crimea wasn’t secure there
19:29 were no good Communications to Crimea
20:31 was subject to blockade by the
20:32 ukrainians and crucially despite the
20:35 weakness of the western response to
20:37 Putin’s violation of Ukraine’s
20:39 sovereignty Ukraine’s response in the
20:41 subsequent 10 years was a rap rapid
20:45 rearmament and Improvement of its own
20:48 military
20:49 capabilities by the end of 2020 it was
20:52 clear that Ukraine was soon going to be
20:55 able to pose a decisive military threat
20:57 to the puppet states and bass and
20:60 potentially also a threat to Russia’s
20:02 Black Sea Fleet and Russia itself and so
20:06 not only for political reasons but also
20:08 for military reasons Putin came to the
20:11 conclusion that he had to act in order
20:14 to prepare the ground for his aggression
20:17 he published an article on the historic
20:19 Unity of the Russian and Ukrainian
20:21 peoples a faraga of lies and
20:25 misrepresentations designed to
20:26 legitimize the annexation
20:29 Western policy makers failed to
21:31 understand how serious Putin was and did
21:33 nothing to deter him indeed the armed
21:35 shipments to Ukraine were reduced in
21:37 2021 sanctions were taken off the
21:39 nordstream 2 Pipeline and every signal
21:42 was sent from Washington that Putin
21:45 could not uh did not need to fear a
21:47 military response if he took further
21:49 aggressive action in Ukraine he did he
21:52 thought it would be easy uh in February
21:55 of 2022 he
21:56 attempted uh a swift Blitz cik operation
21:01 that was designed to decapitate the
21:02 Ukrainian State overthrow zalinski and
21:05 install the kind of pro- Russian
21:07 government that had existed prior to
21:10 2014 and it failed it failed completely
21:14 and it failed because the Ukrainian
21:17 military really had improved
21:19 sufficiently to repel this Russian
21:21 aggression they defeated the Russians in
21:24 the Battle of Kev drove them back and
21:26 indeed by the fall of 2022 Russian
21:29 armies in full flight from outside kke
22:32 and Kon and that is what happened Scott
22:36 so the notion here is not that
22:38 we the invasion of Ukraine took place
22:41 not because we the West broadly speaking
22:43 or the United States provoke them the
22:47 Russians but be because we failed to
22:49 deter them we indicated too much
22:52 softness not too much hardness yeah
22:54 that’s what they say and and look some
22:56 of what he says is right but it’s a a
22:58 massive POS of Lies by Omission mostly
22:01 uh starting with anybody who says the
22:03 truth about this or adds the additional
22:06 context about this from anything but
22:08 London and Washington’s point of view is
22:10 repeating the propaganda of the other
22:12 side that’s what they try to say about
22:14 Syria and that’s what they try to say
22:16 about Libya and that’s what they try to
22:17 say about Iraq and that’s what they try
22:19 to say about Afghanistan that you’re
22:21 just repeating the propaganda of the
22:22 enemy and yet the dissidents were right
22:25 about all of those and the people who
22:26 were repeating the point of view of
22:28 Washington and London have done nothing
22:29 but create disaster after disaster after
23:32 disaster so I’m not going to sit here
23:33 and stand for Russian propaganda I got
23:36 accusations of that I got 7,800
23:38 citations in my book Scott Neil and I
23:41 are not accusing you of repeating any
23:42 propaganda we’re asking what you think I
23:45 I’m I’m granting that your book is a
23:47 meticulous piece of work go so go ahead
23:50 the only citations of Russians talking
23:53 in there is either you know Russian
23:56 media exposing something about the
23:57 Russian state or just directly conveying
23:60 their statements because I’m saying
23:02 here’s what they said not because I’m
23:04 saying here’s how you know it’s true cuz
23:06 they said it I’m saying here’s an
23:08 example of a claim that they made why
23:12 why did go when he propaganda there’s no
23:15 Russian propaganda in any of my
23:18 arguments as he said I’m not accusing
23:20 you of that I’m asking you I’m asking
23:22 you why did Putin go in when he did yeah
23:25 I know but I’m refuting his false
23:27 accusation that the other side of the
23:29 story is somehow falling for the lies or
24:32 repeating the lies of the Russians when
24:35 that has nothing to do with our
24:36 conversation here now that I’m done
24:37 refuting that I want to go back to your
24:39 previous question about why they lied in
24:41 the 1990s in 1990 it was because the
24:44 Soviet Union still existed and they
24:46 still had troops in eastern Europe the
24:48 USSR did not finally fall until
24:50 Christmas 1991 and so of course they had
24:53 to tell the Russians what they needed to
24:55 hear to get them out of the way to get
24:57 them to acques and they can continued to
24:59 lie one of the greatest examples of this
24:01 you can read at Brookings by James Gold
24:03 guy wrote All About This was Warren
24:06 Christopher in 1993 went to Moscow and
24:09 lied right to yelton’s face told him
24:11 again we’re going to do this is when
24:13 they replaced the csce with the
24:15 partnership for peace and said we’re
24:17 going to do the partnership for peace
24:18 and you and Ukraine will be equal
24:20 Partners in it so in other words
24:21 Ukraine’s neutrality will be guaranteed
24:24 there won’t be a fight over Ukraine and
24:25 we’ll all be partners together and
24:27 yelson said this is the greatest stroke
24:28 Brilliance tell Bill I’m so enthused etc
25:31 etc and then he come to find out in the
25:34 beginning of ‘94 that Clinton announced
25:36 that psych we didn’t mean that we’re
25:37 actually going to expand NATO at your
25:39 expense anyway and yes they did grow and
25:42 complain all through the 1990s including
25:45 you notice he just skipped 1999 when
25:47 they brought when they did the first
25:48 round and brought the first three
25:50 nations into NATO they launched the
25:52 aggressive war against Serbia the same
25:54 week or two weeks later and proving that
25:56 it’s not just a defensive Alliance and
25:59 the Russians went completely crazy and
25:01 all of America’s best friends in the
25:03 Russian establishment people like chewas
25:06 and gar and all those who’d been friends
25:09 with Clinton and Gore they said this is
25:12 the worst thing that you could do you’re
25:14 destroying the entire new warm
25:16 relationship that we created we have no
25:19 reason to do this and he cited George
25:21 Kennan but let me add here pardon me I’m
25:22 trying to talk fast for you here but
25:24 listen let me read George
25:26 Kennan let me finish it real quick
25:29 2third sir 2third super majority of the
26:32 population of the Council on Foreign
26:34 Relations was against NATO expansion
26:37 okay the entire population of the
26:39 American Embassy in Moscow was against
26:41 it the experts were against it the the
26:44 very few powerful wonks and politically
26:47 connected interests in the Clinton
26:49 government overrode them and decided to
26:51 do it anyway it was just Kenan and Pat
26:53 Buchanan it was many many including Paul
26:56 Nitsa and Robert mcnamer and Perry the
26:59 sitting Secretary of Defense at the time
26:01 so that they should not do this and for
26:02 one reason cuz it’ll unnecessarily
26:05 provoke the Russians they said the same
26:07 thing in 2004 with the second round
26:11 and in other words if the argument was
26:13 clear that it was against our own
26:15 interest to expand NATO what was the
26:16 motive well it’s public Choice Theory
26:19 right it’s some interests are satisfied
26:21 so one of the things that was a very big
26:23 two two of the things that were
26:25 extremely important and this is all from
26:26 the New York Times this isn’t consp
26:29 Theory stuff okay this is pure just
27:31 journalism out there you can find it I
27:33 have all the footnotes it was the the
27:35 major incentives pushing for it were
27:38 locky dollars and polish votes and the
27:41 Republicans were attacking the Democrats
27:43 for being weak on it and they said we’re
27:46 going to Corner the Republicans on this
27:47 issue in Illinois and Pennsylvania where
27:50 there are a lot of Eastern European
27:52 Americans uh whose votes they wanted to
27:54 get and Bruce Jackson from Lockheed
27:57 launched the committee to to expand NATO
27:59 and spent millions of dollars lobbing
27:02 and whining and dining policy makers and
27:04 Eastern European leaders to get
27:06 everybody all on board to build a
27:08 consensus for this thing because simply
27:09 his job was getting rid of fighter jets
27:12 at American taxpayer expense and again
27:14 there are books about this there’s a
27:15 great article by Richard Cummings about
27:16 it and you can read about it in the New
27:18 York Times Bruce Jackson Lockheed NATO
27:21 expansion it’s in the New York Times
27:23 this is what the incentives were it’s
27:24 called public Choice Theory it means
27:26 there’s no National interest there’s
27:28 just the individual interests of the men
27:30 in charge and in this case we’re talking
28:32 about William Jefferson Clinton and his
28:34 men and they were terrible men and they
28:36 made terrible decisions now we had to
28:38 skip and I know it’s a long complicated
28:40 subject but we skipped all the way to 22
28:42 and the current War but but just barely
28:44 touching on
28:45 2014 and of course skipping completely
28:49 omitting the fact that America for the
28:52 second time in 10 years spent tens or
28:55 maybe even hundreds of millions of
28:57 dollars supporting a phony Revolution
28:59 against the elected government in
28:01 Ukraine in the orange reolution take a
28:03 moment to explain what you mean Scott
28:04 for for our listeners what took place in
28:06 2014 the revolution you’re or the the
28:09 coup According to some Revolution
28:11 according to others take a moment to
28:12 explain that would you please well it
28:14 was essentially a street PCH it wasn’t
28:15 exactly a coup like the general
28:17 overthrew him and replaced him but it
28:18 was a right-wing p in the street led by
28:21 the descendants of those who served
28:24 Hitler in the in the war in the O uh in
28:27 World War II the direct descendant I
28:29 demonstrate this don’t shake your head I
29:30 demonstrate this with absolute hard
29:32 facts and the best Holocaust historian
29:34 was overthrown and by whom was he that’s
29:37 exactly who they were was the right
29:39 sector and this faota party of the
29:41 direct descendants of those who served
29:44 the SS in the second world war and they
29:46 were the ones who led the PCH on
29:48 American dollars to force and by the way
29:51 let me say this I think is so important
29:53 people said that Paul manfor was
29:55 Russians Russia’s agent controlling
29:58 Trump or and before that that he was
29:00 Russia’s agent working with yanukovich
29:03 but he was in fact representing
29:05 America’s interest because yanukovich
29:07 was not so pro-russian yanukovich wanted
29:11 to sign the association agreement with
29:13 the European Union and manafort’s entire
29:16 job working for him was trying to help
29:18 him accomplish that there’s an excellent
29:20 interview of Mana for who I would
29:22 disagree with about this stuff you can
29:23 watch this great interview with him with
29:25 Patrick Bet David where he explains all
29:28 this and what happened was and even
29:29 Henry Kissinger who you’re writing a
30:31 biography about you might look this up
30:32 it’s in the guardian Henry Kissinger
30:34 said it was all Angela merkel’s fault
30:37 because she played too hard of hard ball
30:40 she wasn’t willing to give easy enough
30:42 loan terms she was demanding too much
30:44 austerity and she according to Henry
30:46 Kissinger was the one who ruined the
30:49 deal and once she ruined the deal the
30:50 argument is the argument is that in 2014
30:53 a pro-russian leader of Ukraine was
30:56 overthrown by right-wing interests in
30:58 Ukraine cooperating with the United or
30:00 the United States funding and
30:02 cooperating with right-wing interests in
30:03 Ukraine they overthrow a more or less
30:06 pro-russian leader of Ukraine and
30:08 replace him with a pro-western leader of
30:09 Ukraine that’s the argument about 2014
30:13 well that’s what I’m say this is what
30:14 happened in the end of 2013 that got it
30:15 kicked off was he refused to sign this I
30:19 stated that
30:20 correctly that’s right quickly 2014
30:24 Neil and well let me let me let me let
30:26 me add one sentence let me add one
30:29 sentence to the way you sum that up okay
31:31 which is after the PCH was successful
31:33 all former Ukrainian presidents signed a
31:36 letter uh Craft Truck kuchma and Yenko
31:39 all signed a letter saying we must now
31:42 just repeal The harke Pact and kick
31:44 Russia out of the Sesto naval base in on
31:48 the Crimean Peninsula only then did
31:51 Russia did Putin order his Sailors and
31:53 Marines to seize that peninsula in the
31:55 coup
31:56 main Neil before by the way boys I’m
31:59 going to insist on coming to the present
31:02 next we’re now in 2014 we’re going to
31:04 jump to 2024 Neil go ahead part part of
31:07 the problem with Scott Horton’s argument
31:11 is that the counterfactual lacks
31:13 plausibility are you arguing that it
31:16 would have been better for the countries
31:18 of Central and Eastern Europe that they
31:20 didn’t join nato in uh the period of
31:23 NATO enlargement would they have been
31:25 more secure outside NATO the Striking
31:28 thing about Ukraine’s fate is precisely
32:30 that it happened when it was outside
32:32 NATO it was the fact that it wasn’t
32:34 protected by Article 5 that left it
32:36 vulnerable to Russian aggression so one
32:39 obvious lesson of NATO enlargement is
32:41 that it certainly benefited those
32:43 countries that were fortunate enough to
32:45 become NATO members Ukraine you’re
32:47 begging the question you’re assuming
32:49 that there was a threat to them at all
32:50 you could let me finish NE one of the
32:53 obvious problems about Ukraine’s
32:56 situation was that it was offered NATO
32:58 membership a path to Nato membership
32:00 after 2008 but that was never sincerely
32:03 intended leaving Ukraine and Georgia in
32:06 a kind of Limbo with some possibility
32:08 notionally of NATO membership but no
32:10 likely of it’s happening and of course
32:12 both countries subsequently were the
32:14 victims of Russian military aggression
32:16 so the first and obvious point is that
32:19 if you’re not in NATO you’re far more
32:21 likely to be the subject of Russian
32:23 military aggression then if you are in
32:25 NATO QED it was eminently sens for the
32:28 cchs for the poles for the Baltic states
33:30 to join NATO and the counterfactual of a
33:33 US policy that wouldn’t have brought
33:35 them into NATO is of obviously a much
33:37 less stable Central and Eastern Europe
33:39 secondly to hear scottt Horton defend
33:42 the yanukovich regime one of the most
33:44 corrupt regimes to have emerged since
33:46 the collapse of commun I defend the
33:48 regime at all what are you talking about
33:50 I did not defend the regime corrup you
33:53 argued if I can finish you argued that a
33:56 Nazi uh Revolution or P occurred against
33:01 yanukovich but yanukovich was overthrown
33:04 in a popular revolution against his
33:06 egregiously corrupt rule I wonder Scott
33:10 have you ever been to Ukraine
33:13 no you see it seems to me that that’s
33:15 one of the reasons that you’re not
33:17 really a terribly Dependable Authority
33:19 on this subject have you been to Russia
33:22 have you listen what that was that was a
33:24 popular revolution by some ukrainians
33:27 against the interest
33:28 many give me a break dud have you been
34:32 to
34:33 Russia you know what all these are all
34:35 red hairing arguments you want to
34:38 bring the difference between
34:44 us ho I’ve spoken Hoover where you guys
34:48 work I’ve spoken with the people who
34:51 were directly involved in euroa in the
34:54 revolution that
34:55 overage and I can assure you that they
34:59 did did you
34:00 interview claim they are Nazis Scott is
34:03 of course another part of of Russian
34:06 propaganda that you Andre on recycling
34:10 in this conversation so I’m sorry
34:12 somebody who’s been to neither Ukraine
34:14 nor Russia is not in a terribly strong
34:16 position no matter how many copies of
34:18 the New York Times they’ve read that’s
34:20 ridiculous that’s nothing but a red
34:21 hairing argument as are all your
34:23 arguments I didn’t defend yanukovich
34:24 about corruption I that wasn’t addressed
34:27 what I said was he wanted to move to the
35:30 West he was not Russia’s puppet he that
35:34 doesn’t mean he was a good man he hired
35:36 Mana for to help him move west but the
35:39 West botched the negotiations that’s
35:42 what I said no one but you heard me
35:44 defend yanukovich a’t that funny um also
35:49 here’s for a counterfactual our current
35:51 CIA director was the ambassador to
35:55 Moscow in 2008 when he explicitly warned
35:60 condalisa rice not to give a membership
35:03 action plan to Ukraine and Georgia and
35:06 anyone can read it at Wikileaks it’s a
35:08 famous memo it’s called net means net
35:12 and it’s by William Burns and he saying
35:14 to her this is the brightest of red
35:16 lines the Russians everyone in Russia is
35:19 agreed he says he’s not just talking to
35:21 labov he’s talking to everybody at all
35:23 the think tanks and all the experts and
35:25 they’re all saying this is going to
35:27 cause a war lavro said if you bring
35:29 Ukraine into NATO it could cause a civil
36:31 war this is our current CIA director who
36:34 failed to prevent this said said the
36:38 Russians said if you do this it could
36:40 cause a civil war in Ukraine and which
36:42 would be a situation that they would be
36:44 forced to make a choice whether to inter
36:46 decision they do not want Civil War that
36:49 happened in
36:50 Ukraine an by a neighboring country
36:54 which is a slightly different thing she
36:56 she ignored his advice and she gave a
36:59 membership action plan or a half-ass one
36:01 because the Germans and French did
36:03 everything they could to try to stop her
36:05 and and Bush so they compromised and
36:08 gave this halfway offer as you said but
36:10 it’s such a circular argument question
36:12 begging argument to say that oh if only
36:15 we just brought Ukraine into NATO first
36:17 then we would have just not had a
36:18 problem no Russia just would have
36:20 invaded them then because I’m telling
36:21 you and this is in the book I cite this
36:24 I got I got more footnotes than you’ve
36:26 ever seen in your life and direct quote
36:28 ations from American experts from the
37:30 1990s through the 2000s through the 201s
37:34 and into the 1920s including your
37:37 beloved Kissinger and Zaba brazinski and
37:39 all of the very top graybeards saying
37:42 that and including Ken Pollock who who
37:45 helped you li into war with Iraq back 20
37:47 years ago they all said Ukraine itself
37:51 is the absolute touchiest of issues the
37:53 most neuralgic issue is what burns said
37:57 because is a massive ethnic Russian
37:60 population in the East it used to belong
37:02 to Russia in a way that lvia and Estonia
37:05 never truly did they were like occupied
37:07 Imperial possessions but they are a
37:10 separate ethnicity and and have a
37:12 different history whereas noo rusia is
37:15 so tied to Russian history it’s an
37:18 extremely touchy subject and it has been
37:20 since Independence and they all
37:22 recognized that and they all weren’t
37:24 against it and at various times
37:26 Kissinger brazinski Ken poock and all
37:28 these other Council on Foreign Relations
38:31 guys said we ought to make a separate
38:33 deal regarding Ukraine we ought to
38:35 promise never to bring them into NATO we
38:37 ought to guarantee their permanent
38:39 neutrality Kissinger wrote this in the
38:41 Washington Post in
38:42 2014 and then that will avoid picking
38:45 this fight now you say well if only we’
38:47 given them a war guarantee earlier there
38:49 never would have been a fight but that’s
38:50 not true there just would have been a
38:51 full scale War earlier because the
38:53 Russians were never going to accept that
38:55 that’s the fact well the reality of of
38:58 course Godot is that the Russians were
38:59 in no way able to go to war with NATO
38:01 and they’ve consistently avoided going
38:03 to war with NATO for a very good reason
38:06 they’re entirely outmanned and outgunned
38:09 by NATO but they could go to war with
38:11 Ukraine now let’s grant that there was a
38:14 meaningful debate about whether or not
38:17 Ukraine should be offered NATO
38:19 membership uh the same uh argument was
38:22 made about Georgia and that debate went
38:24 on within us uh policy circles before
38:27 during an after 2008 and as you rightly
38:29 say Henry Kissinger was one of those who
39:31 was skeptical about the idea uh of
39:34 making uh Ukraine a NATO member though
39:36 he later changed his mind about that and
39:39 the reason he changed his mind was of
39:40 course that Russia invaded Ukraine now I
39:43 don’t think anything that you’ve said so
39:45 far has persuaded me or I suspect
39:48 anybody listening that Russia was right
39:52 and justified in launching a war of AG
39:54 that’s not my argument so well it does
39:57 sound like it because no that’s
39:59 ridiculous again you’ve done nothing but
39:01 Tilt at windmills this whole time you
39:03 make up counterfactuals that I never
39:05 said you make up quotes I never said you
39:07 call me Russian
39:09 propaganda go ahead arue something I
39:12 said or go home and take a n so the
39:15 question I’m asking you is even granting
39:18 that there were good arguments against
39:20 Ukraine becoming Ming you sound like a
39:23 little girl you have to go up in your
39:25 inflection at the end of every sentence
39:27 like
39:28 pleas let him ask a question go
40:31 ahead I’m showing as much patience as I
40:34 can with a a rather juvenile debater M
40:39 if you grant all of this it doesn’t make
40:42 Russia’s invasion of Ukraine legitimate
40:44 anymore than say saddam’s Invasion
40:46 Kuwait was legitimate I didn’t unless
40:49 you unless you’re going to argue that
40:51 this was a Justified Invasion what
40:54 exactly is your position were we wrong
40:56 to resist it be wrong to support Ukraine
40:59 in defending itself against Invasion
40:01 what’s what’s your position on that I
40:03 don’t understand well you know you wrote
40:05 this article in Bloomberg News Putin and
40:07 Biden misunderstand history in the
40:08 Ukraine war that came out in March of
40:11 2022 where you said you quoted David
40:13 Sanger from The New York Times and you
40:15 also cited all your own sources and I’m
40:17 paraphrasing here anyone who’s anyone in
40:21 Washington and London knows that the
40:23 goal here is to lock Russia into a
40:25 long-term engagement in Ukraine at the
40:29 expense of the people of Ukraine’s lives
41:32 in order to weaken Russia that’s your
41:34 great article we’ve all cited it so many
41:36 times you wrote in here that prolonging
41:38 the war runs the risk of not just
41:40 leaving tens of thousands of ukrainians
41:42 dead and millions homeless but also of
41:44 handing Putin something that he can
41:45 plausibly present at home as victory
41:47 betting on a Russian Revolution which is
41:50 what they were saying yeah we’re going
41:51 to win this war and it’s going to weaken
41:52 Russia and his government’s going to
41:54 fall and you said betting on a Russian
41:56 Revolution is betting on an exceedingly
41:58 rare event even if the war continues to
41:60 go badly for Putin if the war turns in
41:02 his favor there will be no Palace coup
41:04 and so you were cautioning against
41:07 extending the war you explained in here
41:09 you said this explains why Joe Biden is
41:12 so quick to level the accusation that
41:15 Vladimir Putin is a war criminal meaning
41:18 to preclude the chance of Peace
41:20 negotiations to
41:23 prevent taking place isn’t that right
41:25 this doesn’t change anything about the
41:28 question I asked you which is do you
42:30 think we were wrong to support Ukraine
42:33 in its war of self-defense I’m just
42:35 agreeing with you agreeing with me here
42:37 that of course it was wrong you di
42:40 opposed to me you just explained that
42:42 this isn’t a war of self-defense it’s a
42:44 war of America bogging down Russia to
42:46 weaken and break Russia you’re the
42:48 source for it sir what are you talking
42:50 about let’s go to do
42:53 with the
42:56 point made that Le which as you say was
42:59 published early in the war was that the
42:01 war should be Ended as soon as possible
42:04 in the circumstances that were favorable
42:06 to Ukraine in 2022 but this doesn’t
42:08 alter the question that I’m asking
42:11 you Are We Wrong to have supported
42:14 Ukraine in its War for its independence
42:17 against Russian aggression well you’re
42:19 assuming the premise that history begins
42:21 on the 24th when the Russian tanks roll
42:23 in and then what should we do then but
42:25 why do you get to fr
42:28 have a date and we all know the date
43:30 when the Russians invaded Ukraine we
43:33 also are you arguing that we should
43:36 simply have let them roll over and take
43:39 control of Eve I’m arguing that Joe
43:42 Biden should have engaged in diplomacy
43:44 throughout the year 2021 and into 2022
43:47 instead of the policy that they adopted
43:51 which was to warn Russia you better not
43:54 but not to engage in any official real
43:57 diplom to try to end the war and they
43:59 refused to negotiate even the potential
43:02 of neutrality for Ukraine they have this
43:05 concept it’s just jargon doesn’t mean
43:07 anything it’s called the open door and
43:10 that means that if a country wants to
43:12 join NATO that’s between them and NATO
43:14 and no other nation’s interest can ever
43:17 ever ever be taken into account no
43:19 matter what and so even though you and I
43:21 agree with something you said earlier in
43:23 the debate where you said they never
43:24 truly intended to bring Ukraine into
43:26 NATO but in other words a real war
43:28 guarantee but what they did do was arm
44:30 them up you talked about Ukraine arming
44:32 up like it happened magically or they
44:34 did it themselves it was the Obama and
44:36 the Trump governments and then the Biden
44:37 governments that armed them up and I’m
44:40 so glad that you brought that up because
44:42 um you right that it was not enough to
44:44 deter Russia and in fact at the
44:46 beginning of the war a great journalist
44:48 named Zack Dorfman who wrote this uh
44:51 indepth series about the CIA in Ukraine
44:53 for Yahoo news he quoted CIA office ERS
44:58 who were in charge of importing those
44:00 weapons from the United States into
44:02 Ukraine in the I’m not sure but at least
44:05 Trump late Trump and into the Biden
44:07 years pardon me but C the Ukraine need
44:09 just because I stopped the drink of Dr
44:11 Pepper doesn’t mean you get to jump in
44:14 here dcia officers told Zack Dorfman
44:18 that they warned their bosses to warn
44:21 the politicians that you have
44:24 miscalibrated by pouring these weapons
44:27 in you it’s not enough to deter Russia
44:29 but it is enough to provoke them it’s
45:31 enough to make them feel like it’s now
45:34 or never which is what you said that was
45:36 why Russia invaded because Ukraine was
45:38 building up and it was now or never but
45:40 it was America that was building them up
45:42 and putting them in the situation where
45:45 it was now or never and that’s why you
45:47 omitted that part of it is it was
45:49 foreign intervention that made it that
45:50 way we we’ve spent now three-fifths of
45:53 our time on antecedants on pre before
45:56 the war now is the time to take
45:59 advantage of the power of gold and
45:00 silver to grow your wealth whether
45:02 you’re an experienced investor or new to
45:04 the game these precious metals have a
45:06 long history of being a safe haven for
45:08 your savings but they also offer growth
45:10 potential making them a wise investment
45:12 choice so where does the average
45:14 investor go to buy gold and silver
45:16 that’s easy JM Bullion JM Bullion is one
45:19 of the most popular and most trusted
45:20 precious metals retailers in the nation
45:23 we offer a huge selection of gold silver
45:25 platinum and Palladium products that can
45:27 be deliver to your door in safe discreet
45:29 fully insured packaging from one gram of
46:32 gold to an entire mint box of silver JM
46:34 Bullion offers precious metals to suit
46:36 every Financial goal and budget no
46:38 matter your budget now is the time to
46:41 start investing in precious metals and
46:42 start protecting yourself and your
46:44 savings against these volatile markets
46:46 visit jmbullion.com today to take a look
46:49 at our wide variety of precious metals
46:50 rounds coins and bars and find out how
46:52 you can turn your savings into gold
46:57 the Russians invaded in February of
46:60 2022 since then the United States has
46:03 given Ukraine $60 billion in military
46:05 assistance these have to be round
46:07 numbers but these are the best I could
46:09 find and over a hundred billion dollar
46:11 in economic and humanitarian Aid too
46:14 much or too little
46:17 Scott well look the whole thing should
46:19 be called off immediately we need to
46:21 negotiate the high Watermark of
46:23 Ukraine’s effort here within September
46:26 of 20 22 when they had their brilliant
46:29 faint in kerson they retook half of
47:31 kerson and they retook essentially all
47:33 of harke then it has been all downhill
47:36 from there former chairman of the joint
47:38 Chief of Staff Mullen and the current at
47:40 that time chairman of the joint Chief of
47:42 Staff Millie both said Now’s the Time to
47:45 negotiate while you’re only this far
47:47 behind the rest of the establishment the
47:49 White House and the media they all said
47:51 no no no as much as it takes for as long
47:54 as it takes until Ukraine is restored to
47:57 2013 borders including Crimea and the
47:00 rest which was always an absolute pipe
47:02 dream and by pursuing that with the fail
47:05 escalation of 2023 and the and the
47:08 absolute grind of a war that’s taken
47:10 place in the donbass they’ve done
47:12 nothing but lose territory since then
47:14 and the Americans do nothing but insist
47:16 that they lower their conscription age
47:18 and lower the age at which they send new
47:21 new Canon F Canon F into battle to die
47:24 in a losing war and people can dress
47:26 this all up as virtue we can’t abandon
47:28 our friends and all these things but
47:29 that was what they said about
48:30 Afghanistan for 20 years we’re backing
48:33 this Afghan national government and its
48:34 Army the tajik and and Hazara and USC
48:37 coalition to keep the poshon Taliban out
48:41 but it didn’t work and we got hundreds
48:43 of thousands of people killed and in the
48:44 end lost the war anyway and that’s the
48:47 same thing that we’re doing here it’s
48:48 the same thing that happened in Vietnam
48:50 these attack them missiles aren’t game
48:52 changers against Russia and so I’m sorry
48:55 to be the bearer of bad news but but
48:57 unless you’re willing to actually lower
48:59 the conscription age to 18 and do Mass
48:01 conscription and send them all to the
48:03 front which they’re not willing to do
48:04 because they’re facing a terrible
48:05 demographic crisis right now they’re
48:07 only setting middle-aged men to the
48:09 front to fight they’re not willing to
48:10 risk their young men and Lindsey Graham
48:12 demands that no lower the age send
48:15 younger and younger men over there to
48:17 die in a war that they’ve already lost
48:19 the question now gentlemen is whether
48:20 the Russians are going to take harke and
48:22 Odessa or whether we’re going to be able
48:24 to negotiate a piece before it gets that
48:26 bad Neil this is you in a recent
48:28 interview I’m quoting you Neil it’s not
49:31 very easy to see how Ukraine can get
49:33 Russia
49:34 out so it’s important that we get an
49:37 Armistice and the analogy I would use is
49:39 with the Korean War close quote Neil
49:42 could you explain yourself on that one
49:45 well I argued from very early on in fact
49:47 even uh from the first month of the war
49:49 that it might well be understood as the
49:52 uh Korean War of our Cold War the first
49:55 Hot War really that clarifies the True
49:57 geopolitical Lie of the land we’ve got
49:60 this far in the debate without anybody
49:02 mentioning that Russia’s war effort
49:04 would not have been sustainable without
49:05 large scale economic support from China
49:08 China as well as Weapons uh from Iran
49:10 and now weapons and men from North Korea
49:14 so an axis of sorts has formed in
49:17 support of Russia’s war effort and on
49:19 the other side Ukraine has been
49:20 supported not only by the United States
49:22 but actually European Union countries
49:24 have delivered more in financial terms
49:27 though not in military terms to Ukraine
49:29 than the United States so the parallel
50:32 with the Korean war was that you have a
50:35 year of very kinetic Warfare and then
50:37 something like uh attrition and
50:40 stalemate and that’s been uh to some
50:43 extent true until really us Aid was cut
50:46 off uh which caused a significant
50:49 deterioration of Ukraine’s position in
50:51 that six-month period now Scott who
50:53 likes getting hot under the collar will
50:55 be surprised perhaps he St reading my
50:57 columns to realize that we agree that
50:00 the war’s prolongation after 2022 was a
50:03 major error the Biden administrations
50:05 made a succession of mistakes the first
50:07 one was to fail to deter Putin in 2021
50:10 and the second one was not to end the
50:12 war in 2022 we don’t disagree about that
50:15 uh the issue really is whether the new
50:17 Trump Administration will be able to end
50:19 the war when the balance of military
50:21 Advantage is clearly tilted in favor of
50:23 Russia it’s very hard to get people to
50:26 negotiate and enter a war if one side is
50:28 clearly winning and this is the Legacy
51:31 that the Biden Administration has left
51:33 uh to Donald Trump and his National
51:35 Security team as I go every year to
51:37 Ukraine and therefore know the country
51:39 rather better than Scott I can assure
51:42 you that the mood is extremely Bleak uh
51:45 in keev right now and it has been uh
51:47 really for most of this year there’s a
51:50 great deal of bitterness uh that the
51:52 Biden Administration encouraged the 2023
51:54 counter offensive but didn’t Supply the
51:56 wherewithal
51:57 uh for it to succeed Peter you asked
51:60 have we given too little or too much
51:02 correct Ukraine the answer is very
51:04 simple too little for them to win just
51:07 enough for them not to lose but now
51:09 actually not even that much and in a
51:12 desperate attempt to correct matters
51:14 restrictions are being lifted on the use
51:16 of attacks and storm Shadows but it’s
51:18 too late because the potential targets
51:20 were long ago moved by the Russians out
51:22 of range so although Scott likes getting
51:24 angry um actually we agree on this I
51:27 think the the Biden Administration has
51:29 bungled this and it succumbed to the
52:31 delusion that it was in American
52:33 interest for the war to be prolonged
52:35 whereas I think Kissinger understood
52:37 before his death that as any in any case
52:40 of this sort when they’re very very
52:43 unequal competence and remember Russia
52:46 is economic CMS 11 times larger than
52:48 Ukraine in those circumstances you’ve
52:51 got to get the war over as soon as you
52:53 can really and it should have been ended
52:55 by negotiation in 202 22 it’s much
52:58 harder now so Neil back to the North
52:01 Korean analogy extremely
52:03 briefly there’s an arisce in Korea and
52:06 all these decades later South Korea is a
52:09 rich Democratic country it has never
52:12 been able to reunify the country but if
52:16 something like that happened in Ukraine
52:18 that is to say there were a settlement
52:21 the Russians under the settlement keep
52:23 Crimea and about a fifth of Ukraine
52:26 proper a fifth of
52:27 non non-mean Ukraine and two decades
53:32 from now three decades from now we look
53:34 at Western Ukraine including Kei and say
53:37 Here’s a country that’s prosperous
53:40 that’s Democratic that would be a
53:43 victory correct it would be a victory by
53:45 analogy with the Korean case but the
53:48 nightmare scenario is that uh Ukraine
53:51 ends up being South Vietnam not South
53:53 Korea in other words it’s not in a
53:55 sufficiently strong State at the end of
53:57 the peace negotiations to survive a
53:60 second phase or I suppose third phase of
53:02 Russian aggression and that will mean
53:04 that a lot depends on what kind of
53:06 security guarantees are provided to
53:08 Ukraine I think it’s highly unlikely
53:10 that NATO membership will be the way
53:13 that this is resolved I don’t think the
53:15 Trump Administration has many members
53:17 that uh think that way but it’s still
53:20 possible for Ukraine to have some of the
53:22 kind of security guarantees that South
53:24 Korea had after all South Korea is not a
53:25 member of NATO this NATO issue we began
53:28 with is important uh Peter if I may just
54:30 make one point uh Scott regards this as
54:33 a sort of flas point and a major reason
54:36 why War happened Finland of course is
54:38 now a member uh of Nato one of the
54:41 unintended consequences of Putin’s
54:43 invasion of Ukraine and Finland is in
54:45 many ways uh as big a problem from a
54:48 Russian Vantage Point as Ukraine Scott
54:50 are you expecting Vladimir Putin to
54:52 attack Finland next now that it’s been
54:55 part of NATO enlargement
54:58 well I certainly hope not it’s uh
54:00 clearly could be construed as an
54:03 offensive threat to them and why realiz
54:05 why it w’t happen don’t you and the
54:06 reason is that it’s a NATO member I I
54:09 can’t hear you when you’re trying to
54:10 talk over me were you gonna put more
54:12 words in my mouth go ahead and try my
54:14 point is just that the reason it won’t
54:15 happen is that Finland is a NATO member
54:18 and Ukraine’s problems I said before was
54:20 that it was never a NATO member and
54:22 that’s what made it vulnerable anyway
54:24 question that’s funny wait wait a
54:26 goddamn minute listen Russia never
54:28 invaded Finland this whole time just
55:31 brought they would have but we just
55:32 brought into NATO last year we just
55:35 brought him into NATO last year and
55:36 Putin said when America brought Finland
55:37 in they asked him he said listen we’re
55:39 against this and it does create new
55:42 strategic problems for us on the other
55:44 hand we don’t have an ongoing border
55:46 dispute with Finland we don’t have
55:49 nearly complicated as complicated
55:51 politics in dealing with Finland as we
55:54 have in Ukraine Ukraine is entirely
55:57 different issue in in Finland the danger
55:59 is Western military forces being based
55:01 there but there’s no ongoing crisis as
55:05 far as for example millions of ethnic
55:07 Russians whose uh Liberties are being
55:10 threatened on the other side of the
55:12 Border as was the extremely complicated
55:14 and dangerous situation in Ukraine so
55:18 just always begging listen there was no
55:21 threat to the rights of ethnic Russians
55:24 in pre-war Ukraine that that’s not true
55:27 that is not true that is not true and
55:29 and I document in the book The Myriad
56:32 ways in which the Russian language and
56:34 Russian speakers were being persecuted
56:36 their language was being why why did the
56:38 civilian population why did the civilian
56:40 population of eastern Ukraine not
56:42 welcome the Russians then and why did
56:43 they fight them I’m I’m I’m sorry I’m
56:45 not following you well there’s no such
56:48 thing as the people of eastern Ukraine
56:50 there are many people in eastern Ukraine
56:53 who absolutely did many dead people in
56:55 eastern Ukraine your friends the
56:57 Russians Keith my friends the Russians
56:59 you’re pathetic listen Keith gesson my
56:02 friend from The New York Times was there
56:04 and witnessed hundreds of thousands of
56:05 people vote Yes on Independence in 2014
56:09 and it wasn’t because he loves Russia it
56:12 was because they felt that they were
56:14 being attacked militarily attacked by
56:17 their own what they thought was their
56:18 own national government protection force
56:20 in Kiev and so they were turning to
56:22 others the Staggering thing about this
56:24 conversation is your almost total
56:25 ignorance of Ukraine I’m really
56:27 wondering why we’re bothering having it
56:29 what what’s amazing is you don’t know
57:31 anything about what I know about Ukraine
57:33 and what’s really amazing is that
57:34 somebody like you take a trip there
57:36 Scott take
57:37 AED the war in Iraq a British
57:40 imperialist who said that we need to get
57:42 7,000 Americans killed in Iraq for your
57:44 interest is allowed to show his face in
57:47 public and you public policy anywhere
57:49 ever Scott we’re com we’re coming to the
57:51 end we we have bed your wife in front of
57:53 everybody we have six minutes left Scott
57:55 question to you
57:57 what kinds of guarantee Donald Trump has
57:59 said again and again and again that he
57:01 wants to end the war he even said at one
57:03 point he would end it even before taking
57:05 office it seems clear although if you
57:09 want to attack this premise feel free it
57:11 seems clear as I look at it that the
57:13 United States would have to engage in
57:16 some offer of military guarantees
57:19 economic guarantees to support to make
57:21 the ukrainians feel that they could
57:23 settle with the Russians to what extent
57:26 should we be willing should the Trump
57:29 Administration be willing to provide
58:32 guarantees economic and Military
58:34 guarantees to Ukraine
58:36 Scott or to put it another way how
58:38 should Donald Trump settle this well
58:42 miss Ferguson was right that the
58:43 Russians are in a position of strength
58:45 which is going to make it very difficult
58:46 for Trump and who is surrounded himself
58:48 with Hawks Marco Rubio is going to be
58:50 the Secretary of State for crying out
58:51 loud so I don’t know what luck they’re
58:53 going to have trying to resolve this
58:55 there have been plenty of reasonable
58:57 proposals put together by very
58:59 distinguished gentlemen far more
58:01 credential than myself that would say
58:03 that they would have a permanent
58:04 guarantee of neutrality in their
58:06 constitution they would be allowed n uh
58:08 EU membership but not NATO membership
58:11 and I don’t know what security
58:12 guarantees European countries might be
58:14 willing to give but America should not
58:16 give uh security guarantees to anyone
58:18 you know back 20 years ago in a debate
58:20 with Robert Kagan at AEI Mr Ferguson
58:23 said well if the American people can’t
58:25 afford the the uh war in Iraq we’ll just
58:28 have to cut benefits for uh Medicaid and
59:31 Medicare in order so that we can build
59:33 up our military force and in fact
59:35 America is bankrupt and we have a Brit
59:38 telling us we got to cut our welfare
59:40 programs for our elderly people so that
59:42 we can afford militarism that war wasted
59:45 between 5 and8 trillion now the national
59:48 debt is 36 trillion the interest on the
59:51 debt is $2 trillion per year I’m talking
59:53 to guys from the Hoover institution let
59:55 me lecture you guys a little bit about
59:57 I’m asking you a question about what
59:59 Donald Trump should a world Empire Mr
59:01 Ferguson we can’t afford it if you want
59:04 a world Empire you should get the
59:06 British read my book Colossus which
59:08 argues clearly that the United States
59:10 does not like is not likely to be able
59:12 to manage a world Empire but my question
59:15 for you uh Mr Horton is should the
59:18 United States have provided troops to
59:20 South Korea should it have provided
59:22 military uh military presence in postwar
59:26 Japan
59:27 United States have contained the Soviet
59:29 Union during the Cold War was that also
60:31 a mistake always truncating the
60:34 antecedants it was the South that
60:35 started the Korean war with American
60:37 help and this is documented um I forgot
60:41 what’s his name the great scholar the K
60:43 CH had changed his name to Scott Halton
60:46 no please you know people can search at
60:49 antiwar.com J randoo has the review of
60:51 the historian’s uh book I forget his
60:53 name off the top of my head but it’s the
60:55 great historian of the Korean War who
60:56 shows how America was supporting South
60:59 Korean
60:01 forces auth the invasion of South
60:04 Korea Jesus any serious historian of the
60:08 war will tell you that if you trouble to
60:09 read their word I’ll refer you John
60:11 Gadis Neil this is you once again in
60:14 that recent interview I quoted earlier
60:16 I’m quoting you Neil if we are to make
60:18 sure that Putin is not only stopped in
60:19 Ukraine but stopped altogether there has
60:21 to be a real and serious effort by the
60:23 European members of NATO to get not just
60:26 to 2% of GDP that’s on defense spending
60:29 but to 3 and a half% close
61:31 quote
61:34 so an amendment of the question I’ve
61:36 just asked Scott what should the Trump
61:38 Administration be willing to offer so to
61:41 speak to get this settled but also is
61:44 there not an opening here for the
61:46 Europeans to step up and provide us a
61:50 way to shift our attention to China but
61:53 Scott said earlier that Trump has
61:54 surrounded himself by Hawks I quote JD
61:58 Vance in 2022 quoting JD Vance I got to
61:01 be honest with you I don’t really care
61:02 what happens to Ukraine one way or the
61:05 other Neil what should Trump offer and
61:07 what should the EUR Europeans do it’s
61:09 worth adding that JD Vance in a recent
61:11 interview with the New York Times uh
61:13 changed his position and made the point
61:16 that it would be quite wrong if Russia
61:18 were allowed to take uh Ukraine Ukraine
61:21 must in fact not be handed over uh to
61:24 Russia so his position has shifted
61:27 uh clearly the Europeans are at least a
61:29 decade away from strategic autonomy it
62:31 will take them a very long time to
62:32 rebuild their eroded defenses and a
62:35 defense industrial complex the ultimate
62:38 goal and this is something that
62:39 President Trump’s long argued for but
62:41 he’s not the first president to make the
62:42 argument must be for there to be
62:45 meaningful burden sharing so that the
62:47 costs of NATO are not disproportionately
62:49 shouldered by American taxpayers that’s
62:51 long been my position and I think Donald
62:53 Trump has already moved Europeans quite
62:56 some way down that road but it would be
62:58 wrong indeed it would be a delusion to
62:60 imagine that the Europeans can provide
62:02 sufficient deterrence in the short run
62:04 to prevent a third Russian war of
62:07 aggression against Ukraine at some point
62:09 in the near future this isn’t going to
62:11 get settled Peter in the sense of uh
62:14 there being a full peace agreement an
62:17 Armistice is I think the most likely
62:19 outcome a Ceasar U and in that ceasefire
62:23 I think it’s highly likely that Russia
62:25 will remain in control of somewhat less
62:27 than 20% of Ukrainian territory but I
62:29 don’t think the ukrainians will be
63:31 obliged to recognize that as a
63:32 legitimate annexation nor should be be
63:35 because the international order has to
63:36 be based on something other than the
63:38 kind of right of Might that Scott Horden
63:41 has in mind we can’t let the invasion of
63:43 Ukraine be acknowledged as legitimate
63:45 any more than we could let the invasion
63:46 of Kuwait be recognized as legitimate
63:50 the United States will therefore have to
63:52 help Ukraine with its defenses just as
63:55 it helps Israel and as long helped
63:56 Israel with its defenses otherwise
63:59 Ukraine like Israel will be menaced by
63:02 Superior uh hostile forces so this is
63:05 the simple reality and it’s nothing to
63:06 do with Empire my book Colossus argued
63:09 that America was not likely or able to
63:12 run an Empire but it is the basis of
63:15 American Primacy and we must want
63:17 American Primacy to endure in Europe as
63:20 well as in Asia the United States has to
63:23 prioritize it faces a hostile AIS of
63:25 China Russia Iran and North Korea they
63:28 threaten American interests in multiple
63:30 locations the new Trump Administration
64:32 will prioritize I feel sure China over
64:35 these other threats because China’s by
64:37 far the biggest and most dangerous but
64:39 he can’t walk away from Ukraine as Scot
64:42 Horton seems to imply because the
64:44 complete collapse of Ukraine uh victory
64:47 for Putin’s aggression would be a very
64:50 very dark day for European and for
64:53 Global Security the question for you Mr
64:55 Horton is who would be next we have
64:57 quite some experience in European
64:59 history if you study it of aggressive
64:02 authoritarian regimes invading countries
64:05 and if you do nothing as we did of
64:07 course in 1938 39 when it was the
64:09 partition of Czechoslovakia that
64:11 happened what happens is not surprising
64:14 they invade somewhere else and sooner or
64:16 later you do have the nightmare of World
64:17 War II so deterrence peace through
64:20 strength is crucial to what the Trump
64:22 Administration has to do and that must
64:24 include deterring Russia from any
64:26 further aggression against Ukraine all
64:28 right couple things here Mr Robinson I
65:31 just wanted to say we’re we’re we’re
65:33 pretty much we’re nearly Out of Time
65:35 closing statement Scott yes sir I’ll try
65:37 to be quick here first of all I have one
65:38 correction I made an error in the the
65:41 heat of my argument there uh Mr Ferguson
65:43 and his friends got 4,000 Americans
65:46 killed in Iraq not seven seven is from
65:49 Iraq and Afghanistan which I know he
65:50 supported as well and it’s funny that
65:52 you say we should call it Primacy not
65:54 Empire because in July 2003 in your big
65:57 debate with Robert Kagan at AEI your
65:60 entire point was that we should dispense
65:02 with all the euphemisms like Primacy and
65:06 predominance and hegemony and just go
65:08 ahead the American people must Embrace
65:12 Empire it worked for the British it was
65:14 fantastic and I’ll be posting that and
65:17 and where you say the American people
65:18 they’ll just have to take cuts to their
65:19 elderly pension programs so that we can
65:21 afford militarism in the Middle East and
65:23 your giant failed progress in
65:25 Mesopotamia I’ll be posting that on my
65:26 Twitter feed so everyone can read it
65:28 where 2003 U is mocking 2024 U for using
66:32 euphemisms like Primacy and in fact you
66:35 even say I read it ReRe it this morning
66:37 you even say in there of course George
66:38 Bush shouldn’t call it Empire when we’re
66:40 addressing the public we should always
66:42 use these euphemisms but between you and
66:45 me Bob Kagan we know what we’re doing
66:47 here the world you’re talking about
66:49 something that happened 20 years ago
66:50 could you give us a closing statement on
66:52 the present I’m I’m an American I’m an
66:55 American and I truly represent British
66:57 people coming over I’m also an American
66:59 Scott I’m a US citizen well nominally
66:03 but you represent really you’re going to
66:04 call my you’re going to call my
66:06 nationality into question and my
66:07 naturalization into question that’s fun
66:10 well everything out of your mouth is
66:11 against America’s interests so I don’t
66:13 know why anyone would listen to I don’t
66:15 think it’s in America’s interest to hand
66:16 Ukraine to Russia which is what you seem
66:17 to want to do you thought it was a great
66:19 idea for America to hand Baghdad over to
66:22 ayatolla sistani right well I mean you
66:25 can look at the middle e and draw your
66:26 own conclusions about anybody anyone can
66:30 see what you did in Iraq you and your
67:32 buddy Bob to talking about Iraq tells me
67:35 you’ve lost the debate on Ukraine no I
67:37 was just making a correction about how
67:39 many people you killed there on the
67:40 question of um closing statement on
67:43 Ukraine Scott because we are out of time
67:45 it’s a rather small number by comparison
67:47 with the number of ukrainians Russian
67:48 aggression has killed all of the uh
67:52 there are 37 million people driven out
67:53 of their homes by the terror Wars at
67:55 least four million people killed
67:57 according to the cost of War project at
67:59 Brown University you’re absolutely wrong
67:01 about that there’s still war going on in
67:03 Somalia and all across uh the Middle
67:06 East and anyway on the question of
67:08 Ukraine Mr Robinson you and the rest of
67:10 your audience will notice that the Hawks
67:12 never have any actual specific details
67:15 about what they want to see happen they
67:16 always resort to these slogans about we
67:19 just can’t give in what do you want to
67:20 see happen we we cannot let Putin win
67:23 but I’m asking what’s your plan because
67:26 the fact of the matter is to drive
67:28 Russian forces out of Ukraine would take
68:32 American Navy and Marines and army to
68:35 drive them out I don’t even think the
68:38 Neil’s plan Neil has already suggested
68:40 his plan which is an Armistice for now
68:42 would that be acceptable to you well but
68:44 he also says they cannot be allowed to
68:46 win and they cannot be allowed to take
68:48 what they’ve taken so which is it but
68:50 the Armistice doesn’t give any formal
68:52 recognition to the Soviets it simply
68:54 puts off for possibly decad his analogy
68:57 was Korea which it up right so so what
68:01 is your plan Scott Clos closing
68:03 statement we are overtime now well
68:06 pardon me then for the mistake if if
68:07 you’re truly saying that no the policy
68:09 of trying to reverse what’s happened in
68:11 The Invasion so far should be abandoned
68:12 and I agree with you about that and if
68:14 you’re you know as far as what security
68:16 guarantees America should give to
68:18 Ukraine after this it should be none
68:20 America should read Kiev The Facts of
68:22 Life which are there’s nothing more that
68:24 can be done for you in this situation
68:26 you guys need to come to peace and by
68:28 the way here’s one thing America
68:30 definitely could do for zinski and that
69:32 would be to provide him some Marine
69:34 Corps bodyguards because he surrounded
69:37 and listen this is important Nazis like
69:40 Dimitri Yash and Andre perui and Andre
69:43 bki have threatened to murder poroshenko
69:46 and zinski repeatedly when they talk
69:48 about trying to make peace zinski tried
69:50 to implement the Minsk 2 deal in
69:53 2019 and they threatened to murder him
69:56 and gentlemen we’re done and the New
69:57 York Times said these are credible
69:59 threats scottt UH 60 seconds ago I
69:03 thought I heard a note of partial
69:04 agreement I’m going to latch on to that
69:07 to close out this conversation Scott
69:10 Horton thank you Neil Ferguson thank you
69:13 and to all our viewers thank you for
69:16 listening to the Zero Hedge debate
69:19 sponsored by JM Bullion thank you
69:21 everybody

Handwritten Notebook Pages