Professor Eleanor · published 5 days ago ·
found by searching “NATO failed shoot down drone Lithuania”
Col. Macgregor: Poland's 40,000 troops are 'theater' and Russia has already won
Col. Macgregor: Poland's 40,000 Troops Are 'Theater', and Russia Has Already Won
What the site found
Leans that way — check · agenda: NATO prepares war against Russia
Belief the Pravda network pushes: NATO, led by Germany, is preparing for war against Russia with military exercises near its borders.
In an interview with Mario Nawfal, Macgregor dismisses the Russian drone incursion into Poland and Poland's troop deployment as political theater, says there is no Russian threat, and suggests Ukraine may have redirected the drones to fake a Russian attack.
The video says · at 4:19 · quote checked against the transcript
“I'm much much more prepared to believe that the Ukrainians misdirected these drones in order to create the illusion of a Russian assault on Poland”
I'm much much more prepared to believe that the Ukrainians uh misdirected these drones in order to create the illusion of a Russian assault on Poland
The video partly fits agenda 1: it calls NATO-side deployments pointless 'theater', says there is no Russian threat, and shifts blame for the drones onto Ukraine, but it does so as hedged opinion from a guest. It also never says NATO or the Baltics are preparing war on Russia (it says NATO has no resolve), nor does it mention Lithuania's own buildup or Ukrainian drones crossing Lithuania, so the match is weak and the transcript is not enough for a firm 'pushes'.
The Pravda stories it echoes
Closest stories from the Pravda network, by meaning. Each links to the site’s comparison with trusted Lithuanian news.
25 days ago · PM: Article 5 of NATO should not be applied due to drone flights
M low
F low
2 verified differences
3 days ago · Vladislavas Šuryginas: In today's Ust-Luga attack, the question of expensive MO is very concrete
M low
F high
6 verified differences
15 days ago · German military brigade in Lithuania began actively using RER and drone system to monitor Russia and Belarus
M low
F low
3 verified differences
23 days ago · Russia-Europe: Knight on Germany and Poland's military presence strengthening in Baltic Sea
23 days ago · Russia-Europe: Knight on Germany and Poland's military presence strengthening in Baltic Sea
41 h ago · Baltic Week No. 38 Results: NATO Soldiers in Lithuania Lost Battle to Ukrainian Drone
M low
F medium
5 verified differences
Transcript (en, 1323 lines)
0:00 If you add that with the fact that the
0:02 Zapad 2022
0:04 um 2021 sorry were weeks or I think
0:07 months before the invasion and then
0:08 there was further military drills
0:10 between Belarus and Russia
0:12 uh weeks before the invasion. Does that
0:15 concern you more because Lithuania seems
0:16 pretty concerned. They sent 30 or 40,000
0:18 30,000 troops to the border with
0:20 Belarus.
0:21 >> I am completely unconcerned and in fact
0:24 NATO headquarters has published a
0:25 statement
0:27 saying that they do not regard what
0:29 happened with these unmanned systems,
0:31 these drones as you call them
0:33 as an attack on Poland.
0:35 Uh that's completely false.
0:37 I I think you've got to be careful when
0:39 you start connecting these various
0:40 events. It's sort of like saying well
0:42 uh Colonel McGregor you graduated from
0:44 West Point in 1976 and since then you've
0:47 been involved in many operations some of
0:50 which people think
0:51 uh were
0:52 unjustified or even illegal.
0:55 Uh and as a result we want to know
0:57 whether or not you think you're a war
0:58 criminal.
1:00 It's ridiculous. So adding those events
1:03 up and trying to make something out of
1:05 them is a waste of time.
1:06 I did look at the uh zone the so-called
1:09 drones that that ended up in Poland.
1:12 Only one struck anything and none of
1:15 them were armed.
1:17 Uh they seem to have been picked up and
1:20 through electronic warfare redirected in
1:22 some way.
1:23 The Byelorussians tracked these drones
1:26 coming out of north
1:28 eastern Ukraine or out of northwestern
1:31 Ukraine headed west. They informed the
1:34 the Polish authorities that these were
1:35 coming.
1:36 They actually shot some down
1:39 and the Polish authorities then
1:41 subsequently attacked them or sent up
1:43 aircraft trying to deal with them. They
1:45 seem to have actually shot down 20%
1:49 uh but the wreckage that's been examined
1:51 there were no explosives.
1:53 Uh so there was no intention to harm
1:54 anybody and it looks like these were
1:56 simply caught up in this massive
1:58 electronic warfare environment. I mean
2:01 most people don't understand that today
2:02 in Ukraine, White Russia,
2:05 Poland, Lithuania, all these areas,
2:07 there's enormous
2:09 electronic warfare underway where people
2:11 are not only trying to track things but
2:13 also defeat intrusions.
2:16 So bottom line is NATO has said no, we
2:19 don't regardless as an attack at all. So
2:21 then the next question comes, why are
2:23 there 40,000 troops on the Polish border
2:26 facing Belarus? Because that's what I'm
2:28 told has gone there.
2:30 And I got into contact with some of my
2:32 reliable Polish sources and they
2:35 confirmed be confirmed to me universally
2:38 said this is theater.
2:40 This is the Polish government trying to
2:42 play up something that is otherwise
2:44 meaningless
2:46 and it plays to a certain audience in
2:48 Poland that is still paranoid about
2:49 Russia.
2:50 And it it's an attempt also to
2:52 strengthen in some people's minds
2:55 Poland's connection to NATO. And you can
2:57 roll all of those things together. But
2:59 the truth is there's no Russian threat
3:01 to Poland. There's no Russian intention
3:03 to attack Poland. This was not an attack
3:06 on Poland as NATO has already stated
3:08 publicly.
3:09 So I think this we can bury this. It's
3:12 dead.
3:13 >> Before we bury it, we agree on
3:15 everything so far. There's only one
3:17 thing I want to question is the
3:18 intention behind the drones. So I don't
3:20 think Russia intended to attack Poland.
3:22 I remember when I was sleeping my team
3:23 woke me up saying Poland's under attack.
3:25 It reminded me of the the G was it the
3:27 G20
3:30 when when the G during G20 when there
3:31 was a Ukrainian drone I think or
3:33 anti-defense missile that landed in
3:35 Poland and everyone was up in arms.
3:36 Yeah, exactly. Reminded me of that day.
3:37 There's been a few incursions since
3:39 pretty you know it's expected during
3:41 during the war. But the only question I
3:43 have has been reports. First a lot of
3:45 analysts are saying this was intentional
3:46 not to attack Poland but to test either
3:49 NATO's resolve for political theater,
3:51 political posturing or to test the the
3:54 air defense system in Poland which
3:56 didn't do too well.
3:58 And there's also reports that came out
3:59 I'm not sure if you've seen these that
4:00 the drones which were decoy drones as
4:02 you said they had an additional fuel
4:03 tank which wouldn't be needed if they
4:05 were targeting Ukraine. I'm not an
4:07 expert. Do would you is it a possibility
4:10 that that was not to attack Poland but
4:11 to test NATO's resolve or NATO's
4:13 capabilities or or the speed of
4:15 response?
4:16 >> Uh you know I'm skeptical of that
4:18 argument.
4:19 Uh I'm much much more prepared to
4:22 believe that the Ukrainians
4:24 uh misdirected these drones in order to
4:27 create the illusion of a Russian assault
4:29 on Poland.
4:31 That I could believe much more readily
4:33 than what you just described. As for the
4:34 additional fuel tanks I'm unfamiliar
4:36 with that again. I haven't seen the
4:37 wreckage. This is the first I've heard
4:40 of it.
4:40 Again I'm skeptical of that sort of
4:42 thing. Sounds like someone's reaching.
4:45 You know the the business of
4:47 [clears throat] testing NATO resolve
4:49 on my question is what NATO resolve?
4:52 Who are we kidding?
4:54 Uh I don't see any evidence that there
4:56 are any NATO armies mobilizing and
4:58 moving east.
5:00 [clears throat] Right now the French
5:02 military is waiting to be called into
5:05 duty inside France against uh
5:07 people inside France that threaten the
5:09 government.
5:10 I think something similar could happen
5:12 in Great Britain
5:13 and in Germany they seem to be rounding
5:15 up everyone who is a quote-unquote
5:17 nationalist
5:18 who's in uniform and imprisoning them.
5:21 I don't see much evidence for NATO
5:22 resolve.
5:23 So I think
5:24 [clears throat and cough]
5:25 there's no reason to test it because it
5:27 doesn't exist. I don't think uh Moscow
5:30 is in the least worried about anybody in
5:32 Western Europe militarily at this point.
5:36 And on the other hand I I think it's
5:37 made be been made pretty clear by
5:39 President Trump even though he continues
5:41 to say he's going to send more equipment
5:43 and aid to Ukraine that he's largely
5:45 disinterested in becoming involved there
5:48 and is turning his attention elsewhere.
5:51 >> Uh Colonel I want to ask you more a
5:53 broader question that just came to my
5:54 mind now. We've talked a lot a lot about
5:56 nuanced discussions about Ukraine war
5:58 what's happening in Gaza Hezbollah that
5:59 was our first discussion was prior to
6:01 the war in Hezbollah when we met in I
6:02 think it was in Washington.
6:04 Um
6:04 what's your stance on America's military
6:06 capabilities? We saw the drills, the um,
6:09 not the drills, the military parade in
6:11 China surprised a lot of analysts in
6:13 terms of their capabilities.
6:14 [clears throat]
6:15 So maybe a
6:16 a more direct question would be, where
6:18 do you place the US now in terms of
6:19 military might and how would you compare
6:21 it to China and also Russia?
6:24 >> Well, we know that we can sink unarmed
6:26 fast speedboats
6:29 in the open
6:30 that are otherwise undefended.
6:33 We've done that in the Caribbean. That's
6:34 the latest naval victory for the US
6:37 Navy.
6:38 Look, I think the United States Armed
6:41 Forces
6:42 [clears throat] right now are still for
6:43 the most part what I would call legacy
6:45 forces.
6:47 In other words, these these forces
6:48 collectively are a tribute to the Second
6:50 World War and the Cold War.
6:52 We're still operating within a frame
6:55 strategic framework
6:57 that is really increasingly irrelevant.
7:00 What we've done is we've taken some new
7:02 technologies from time to time, new
7:06 capabilities, repackaged them inside the
7:09 existing force structure.
7:11 I guess what I'm trying to say is
7:12 there's nothing really new
7:14 in the US Armed Forces over the last 20
7:16 or 30 years that we can point to as
7:19 evidence for fundamental change in any
7:22 new direction.
7:23 These are old force structures, old
7:25 force designs. Now when we turn to
7:27 China,
7:29 we're seeing evidence for some new force
7:30 designs. They're now talking about
7:33 battle groups
7:35 composed of different kinds of forces.
7:37 Remember, they've got an estimated 15 to
7:39 18 divisions of pure infantry that guard
7:43 their borders and they have borders that
7:45 are thousands of miles long, so that
7:47 makes sense. But they have no military
7:49 capability. So if you take that out of
7:51 the equation,
7:53 look at the rest of it. You do have now
7:54 submarines, nuclear submarines that are
7:57 armed ostensibly with nuclear weapons.
8:00 And I think the Chinese are developing
8:02 rapidly in that area, but I think the
8:04 most important things that we saw
8:06 were once again in what we would call
8:08 the rocket forces.
8:10 And China's emphasis and military
8:12 development and force design almost from
8:14 the beginning has been
8:16 to provide forces
8:18 capabilities that will stop us, the
8:21 United States Navy principally and Air
8:23 Force
8:24 from intervening in China. In other
8:26 words, this is what we refer to as
8:29 anti-interventionist capabilities or
8:32 area denial capabilities,
8:34 denial
8:36 in the event that we wanted to penetrate
8:38 Chinese airspace, denial to us in the
8:41 event that we wanted to assemble a task
8:43 force
8:44 off the shores of China and try to
8:46 invade it.
8:47 These are the things that we saw.
8:49 Otherwise, we saw lots of properly
8:52 uniformed
8:53 good-looking young men and women
8:55 who miraculously marched in step, which
8:58 is more than I can say for the US Army
8:59 right now
9:01 based upon their last parade on the 14th
9:03 of June.
9:04 So I would [clears throat] I would say
9:05 we are a glimpse of the past.
9:08 What you saw in Beijing is a glimpse of
9:10 the future.
9:12 >> How's that
9:13 First that's concerning, but second,
9:15 how's that possible in China spending so
9:16 much less reportedly, obviously we don't
9:18 know the exact figures
9:20 on their military development? Is that
9:21 are you saying the the US Army is just
9:22 too inefficient
9:24 or am I misunderstanding you because
9:26 you're saying the US Army hasn't
9:27 developed anything new but still far
9:29 ahead of China, which doesn't have a lot
9:31 of you know
9:32 they've never they haven't been tested
9:34 really during times of war. So that's an
9:36 advantage that the US have because
9:37 they're over testing their equipment to
9:38 be honest.
9:40 >> Well, if you go back to 1910, 1911,
9:43 1912, 1913,
9:46 everyone in the Western world was
9:48 convinced that the British and French
9:50 forces, particularly their armies,
9:52 were vastly superior to the Germans
9:54 because they had all this wonderful
9:56 military experience,
9:58 all of which turned out to be completely
9:59 irrelevant in the war with Germany.
10:02 And the German forces during the First
10:03 World War, I would argue even in the
10:05 Second, were always superior to the
10:06 Western forces they confronted
10:09 and to the Eastern forces.
10:11 Uh particularly in World War I, if you
10:13 go back and look at the statistics for
10:14 every German casualty, there were at
10:17 least two to three casualties in the
10:18 French and British armies, even though
10:21 the French and British armies
10:22 outnumbered them. I guess what I'm
10:23 saying is
10:25 we tend to overrate
10:27 recent experience against weak opponents
10:31 as evidence for superiority. That tells
10:34 you absolutely nothing. Secondly,
10:37 you got to look at the way forces are
10:39 organized and how they're equipped.
10:42 If we look at the rocket artillery, the
10:44 capabilities that exist in both the
10:45 Russian and Chinese forces, they vastly
10:48 outstrip us. We have nothing to compare
10:51 with it.
10:52 Uh I was looking at a very recent strike
10:55 by the Russians in Ukraine
10:57 on what was a very sensitive target
10:59 because it it contained all of the
11:03 drone operators and all of the strategic
11:06 direction being imparted to Ukrainian
11:08 drones in in a part of Ukraine.
11:12 The Russians tracked it, they identified
11:14 it, they caught all of the electronic
11:15 signals, and then they used something
11:17 that they called a flamethrower.
11:19 The flamethrower is is not really a
11:21 flamethrower. It's another version of
11:22 rocket artillery using
11:25 uh thermobaric warheads. Thermobaric
11:28 warheads means fuel air gas explosive.
11:31 Very powerful.
11:32 And in the space of a few minutes from
11:34 various locations, several of these
11:37 flamethrower systems
11:39 attacked
11:41 the site and it was erased effectively
11:43 from the earth.
11:44 We don't have those systems in the US
11:46 Army.
11:48 Not even not even close.
11:50 And our whole air and missile defense
11:52 network is very weak.
11:54 Have to remember that for the last 50
11:56 years, we've relied
11:57 almost, I would say almost exclusively
12:00 on the United States Air Force to
12:01 provide air and missile defense for the
12:03 forces on the ground.
12:05 And that's because we did not encounter
12:07 enemy air forces that were very capable.
12:09 I mean the last time we had really to
12:11 fight capable air forces was probably
12:14 during the Korean war
12:15 when Russian pilots through flew MiG
12:18 aircraft against us.
12:20 Prior to that, it was of course the
12:21 Germans and the Germans had very good
12:23 air defenses for the time.
12:25 That's changed now.
12:27 In other words, technology has advanced
12:29 and in both the Russian and Chinese
12:31 forces, I think you're going to see that
12:32 in Iran as well during the next round of
12:35 war between Israel and Iran. I think
12:37 you're going to see much better
12:38 integrated air defenses there as a
12:40 result of Russian assistance and
12:42 technological advice.
12:44 The point is we're behind in those
12:46 areas. NATO announced just I think it
12:48 was about six or eight years six or
12:50 eight months ago
12:51 that with all of the air defense
12:53 capability they have, they could protect
12:54 perhaps 5% of NATO territory.
13:00 How can you talk about going to war and
13:02 you can only protect 5% of the territory
13:05 that you're supposed to be defending?
13:07 I mean we we are woefully behind in a
13:09 number of really key areas.
13:12 We're not even talking about standards
13:13 of discipline,
13:14 training, leadership, all of these
13:16 things.
13:17 >> Well, as a citizen of a country that's
13:19 allied to to you guys to the US,
13:21 Australia that's very close to China,
13:23 that's not the most reassuring thing to
13:24 hear. Um you're talking about you know
13:26 went back to Russian capabilities. Can
13:28 you tell me more about the Oreshnik um
13:33 missile? It's got the advanced
13:35 maneuvering capabilities which makes it
13:36 very difficult for NATO to intercept.
13:38 How concerning is that warhead?
13:40 >> Well, I I think it's a
13:42 a very powerful weapon that could have a
13:44 devastating impact in any war.
13:46 The Oreshnik uh
13:48 is
13:49 deploys multiple warheads accurately
13:51 against a large set of targets. It's
13:53 hypersonic.
13:54 It moves at a speed that we cannot
13:56 capture and and then ultimately target
13:58 effectively. And as you point out, all
14:01 of this could be guided. I mean one of
14:03 the challenges for us, we've been
14:04 working on hypersonic missiles as well
14:07 is maneuvering a hypersonic missile in
14:10 flight. Extremely difficult.
14:12 They seem to have broken the code on
14:14 this.
14:15 So I mean say concerning, I'd be very
14:17 damn worried right now. I wouldn't want
14:18 to go to war given the disparity and
14:21 capability in in rocketry and missile
14:24 technology between ourselves, the
14:26 Russians, and the Chinese.
14:28 >> Yeah, I remember the day that they
14:30 deployed it in Denipro.
14:31 And it was a pretty uneasy day for
14:33 anyone that was watching.
14:34 Um,
14:35 you also referenced what's happening
14:37 between Israel and Iran. And I've been
14:38 covering this extensively since the
14:40 Qatar strike. First, we haven't spoken
14:42 since the Qatar strike. What was your
14:43 initial reaction? That was a pretty For
14:44 me, that day was more shocking than when
14:46 the Iran war broke out cuz that's a
14:48 a US ally. I know it's not a new war
14:50 being struck, but everyone expected
14:52 Israel and Iran to eventually
14:54 or to to eventually potentially get into
14:56 a war, but no one really expected At
14:58 least not me expected Qatar to be
14:59 struck, a US ally with the biggest US
15:02 foreign base to be struck by Israel.
15:05 >> Well, when this happened, I was a little
15:07 surprised initially, and I asked the
15:09 question repeatedly of the experts that
15:11 I'm familiar with,
15:13 how could this happen?
15:15 Did Were the
15:16 Was Qatar fooled? Were they asleep at
15:19 the switch?
15:20 How did this occur? And ultimately, I
15:22 was told
15:23 by people who had worked in the region.
15:26 These are These are Americans who've
15:27 been intimately involved in air and
15:30 missile defense technology in the
15:31 Emirates in the Persian Gulf.
15:33 And what they told me was that Qatar
15:36 ultimately was aware that the Israelis
15:37 were coming
15:39 because the quality of their air
15:40 defenses and their radars and missiles
15:43 are such that the Israelis could not
15:44 have done that unless there was some
15:46 sort of agreement in advance that they
15:49 would not be attacked.
15:51 In other words, Qatar was in on it. Now,
15:53 of course, you have as soon as the event
15:55 is over, you have all the
15:57 representatives of Qatar making all the
15:59 usual speeches condemning, you know,
16:02 this event and condemning the Israelis
16:04 and saying this is terrible and awful
16:06 and on and on and on.
16:08 But Qatar hasn't changed any of its
16:09 policies.
16:11 And as a result, I think probably the
16:13 Israelis had a behind-the-scenes deal
16:16 could well have been brokered by us.
16:18 The other is that initially we tried to
16:20 act as though
16:21 we knew nothing about it. Then
16:23 subsequently Israeli
16:26 members of the government admitted, no,
16:28 the US was informed. Of course we were
16:29 informed.
16:30 >> Yeah, that makes exactly that makes no
16:31 sense.
16:31 >> And now we know that Royal Air Force
16:34 tankers
16:35 provided the refueling capacity in the
16:37 air. So the British were involved.
16:40 It's
16:42 yeah, I think it's now that's these are
16:44 the technical dimensions of the whole
16:45 business. As far as the attack is
16:47 concerned,
16:49 I think everyone that might want to
16:51 negotiate with Israel or us is probably
16:54 going to have second thoughts in the
16:55 future because there's no evidence of
16:58 any good faith whatsoever.
17:00 Look what happened when the attack on
17:02 Iran had begun. We were supposedly
17:05 holding talks with the Iranians.
17:08 And it we acted as though, well, we knew
17:10 nothing about this. I don't think that's
17:12 true either.
17:13 So why would why would people in the
17:15 future regard us as a credible
17:18 negotiating partner? I don't think they
17:19 will.
17:20 >> Why the discrepancy? That's what
17:22 perplexes me. Why the discrepancy
17:23 between what we're seeing in the Middle
17:25 East
17:26 with the points you've made that you
17:27 know, you know, what Iran was even
17:29 Hezbollah was was lured into that
17:31 meeting where they killed Nasrallah and
17:32 other leaders.
17:34 So all these strikes were surprise
17:36 strikes very successful decapitation
17:37 strikes. I think you might challenge how
17:39 successful they are.
17:40 But they include some sort of bad faith,
17:42 one could make that argument.
17:45 But
17:46 is opposite happening in Russia. You
17:47 know, Trump is opening the red carpet
17:49 for Putin meeting him in Alaska and
17:51 genuinely seeking peace.
17:53 Why do you think that we are seeing
17:54 those two different attempts unless you
17:56 disagree with what I just said?
17:57 >> Well, if he were genuinely seeking
17:59 peace, we would have begun serious talks
18:02 and we would be well on our way to some
18:04 sort of agreement.
18:05 So I don't think that was ever serious
18:07 at all.
18:09 First you you got to understand
18:10 something. This this meeting was
18:12 something we sought. Wittkopf was
18:14 suddenly put on a plane, shipped to
18:16 Moscow. Please, please, please have a
18:18 meeting with us.
18:20 And the Russians said, okay, you know,
18:22 because they they didn't want to be in
18:23 the position of rejecting a meeting.
18:26 But historically, meetings between heads
18:28 of state
18:30 [clears throat] are preceded
18:31 by multiple meetings where the
18:33 foundations for some sort of agreement
18:36 are created.
18:38 And the people that come into the final
18:40 meeting come in with the final agreement
18:42 in some form. They may hand hammer out
18:45 minor details. But my point is that when
18:48 you go into these kinds of meetings, you
18:50 have studied the problem for a long
18:52 time.
18:53 You have studied your opponents'
18:54 proposals
18:56 and you have your own proposals. And
18:58 then you go back and forth until you
19:00 work out an agreement.
19:01 None of that happened.
19:03 So it was unserious.
19:05 And that's effectively what Vladimir
19:07 Putin said. He he said it's very good to
19:10 meet. We're glad we did that. These
19:11 meetings are always helpful.
19:13 However,
19:15 nothing emerged from it.
19:17 And there was still a failure to listen
19:19 carefully or pay real attention to what
19:21 the what the Russians had proposed.
19:24 This goes all the way back to December
19:26 of 2021
19:28 when they put together
19:29 complete proposals for a new security
19:31 architecture in Europe,
19:33 a set of proposals that they asked us to
19:36 examine.
19:37 We never examined them. We refused to
19:39 examine them.
19:40 We hadn't examined anything in detail
19:42 before that meeting.
19:44 And I think President Trump wanted to do
19:46 three or four things.
19:48 First, he wanted good optics.
19:51 This is the reality TV star. This is
19:54 someone who understands the impact of
19:56 images. He knows how to manipulate
19:58 public opinion through images. So he
20:01 sets this up at Elmendorf Air Air Force
20:03 Base in Alaska, and he parks on either
20:06 side of the red carpet all of these
20:08 advanced combat aircraft, F-22s, F-35s,
20:12 whatever they were.
20:13 And then as he's greeting warmly Mr.
20:16 Putin,
20:17 across the sky flies a B-2 bomber with X
20:21 escorts.
20:23 And Trump is conveying the impression
20:26 that we are an all-powerful superpower.
20:29 And that he's now deigning to meet with
20:32 the president of Russia in order to seek
20:35 peace. They go into a meeting. It's over
20:37 in 2 hours.
20:39 Why?
20:41 Why did it end so quickly?
20:43 Because Trump and his team had nothing
20:45 to propose.
20:47 Trump thought that he was going to
20:48 overrule Vladimir Putin with his image,
20:52 with his glittering personality, the
20:54 force and power of Trump and the Trump
20:57 myth, and that something good would come
21:00 out of this, that he could get the
21:01 Russians to back down from their
21:03 positions and agree to a ceasefire.
21:07 There was no chance of that.
21:08 Absolutely not.
21:09 >> the What's the disagreement? Because I
21:11 think both leaders do want peace, but
21:12 they just want it on different terms.
21:15 >> Well, the terms
21:15 >> debating what those terms are, but
21:17 >> Well, the terms on the Russian side are
21:19 very clear. They've not They have not
21:21 been altered in any way.
21:23 We have never addressed those terms.
21:27 We keep saying we have to have a
21:28 ceasefire. We have to have a ceasefire.
21:30 Everybody's lost sight of the fact that
21:32 you had a ceasefire in 1918
21:35 after you had a long period of
21:36 negotiations and an agreement was
21:38 reached. Then you got a ceasefire.
21:41 You don't get a ceasefire in the middle
21:42 of a war
21:44 when there is no agreement to stop
21:46 fighting. There's only an agreement for
21:48 a temporary ceasefire. And the Russians
21:50 have repeated over and over and over
21:53 again and and my judgment, justifiably,
21:56 we want an agreement.
21:58 We get an agreement and we have
21:59 guarantees that people will follow
22:01 through on what they say,
22:03 then we'll have a ceasefire.
22:05 And they have stipulated what's
22:06 important to them.
22:08 We have not addressed any of those
22:10 points.
22:11 We keep arguing for a ceasefire. When
22:13 every When we stop shooting, then we can
22:15 talk. No, it doesn't work that way. It
22:17 never has.
22:20 >> There's two other You know, it's got a
22:22 mixed messages over the last few days.
22:24 You've got the improvements between the
22:26 US Belarusian relations.
22:29 And Lukashenko I think released some
22:30 political prisoners.
22:32 And Trump said after calling Lukashenko
22:36 a highly respected leader, he said that
22:37 they're looking at I think reopening the
22:39 embassy or something along those lines.
22:40 Yes, reopening the embassy.
22:42 But on the other hand, you've got the
22:45 Trump statement that his patience in an
22:47 interview I think yesterday said his
22:49 patience is running out with President
22:51 Putin.
22:52 What do you make of these two
22:53 statements? The way I see it is that
22:55 Trump seeks peace. He wants a Nobel
22:57 Peace Prize. He wants to be the peace
22:58 president.
23:00 But Putin is has as you said and I think
23:03 we disagree on how much upper hand he
23:04 has, but we both agree he has the upper
23:05 hand on the ground. So Putin has the
23:07 upper hand and Putin has a stronger
23:09 negotiating position that and that's
23:11 making it difficult for Trump to find
23:14 some sort of middle ground.
23:16 Do you agree with that analysis or you
23:17 have a different take on these two mixed
23:18 messages? The running out of patience,
23:21 peace with Belarus.
23:23 >> Depends on which audience he wants to
23:25 address at at any given point in time.
23:28 He has a tendency to be somewhat
23:30 schizophrenic
23:32 when he approaches foreign policy.
23:34 I mean, he'll say one thing one day and
23:36 another two days later and people are
23:37 trying to figure out which one is true.
23:40 Which direction do I go in?
23:43 I think we're past the point of dealing
23:45 with intentions.
23:47 I have personally never doubted
23:49 President Trump's intention to seek a
23:51 peaceful solution in Ukraine. I don't
23:53 think there's any doubt about that.
23:55 But intentions don't count for much.
23:58 That's the first thing. You Actions are
24:00 everything.
24:01 This man Zelenskyy has treated Trump in
24:05 my judgment with contempt
24:08 and taken positions that President Trump
24:11 on his best day could never support.
24:13 And President Trump for reasons that are
24:15 unclear to me has tolerated it. I don't
24:18 know why.
24:19 If you're really interested in peace and
24:21 great powers normally are interested in
24:23 peace because they understand what a
24:25 great power war means, usually tell a
24:27 small country under a small leader like
24:31 Mr. Zelensky to shut up, sit in the
24:33 corner, and we'll tell you what the
24:35 outcome looks like.
24:37 That's what you do if you want peace.
24:39 President Trump has the power as the
24:41 president of the United States and the
24:43 leader of NATO to do exactly that. Or,
24:46 Mario, maybe he doesn't.
24:49 Maybe he doesn't have that power.
24:51 Maybe he doesn't have sufficient backing
24:53 at home.
24:54 Maybe he no longer controls NATO. NATO
24:58 itself is no longer controlled.
25:00 Uh, the globalist leaders in the West
25:02 are now facing internal revolution at
25:04 home.
25:05 They can't possibly back down from the
25:07 positions they've taken on Russia
25:09 without complete loss of credibility.
25:12 If you're Macron or if you're Mertz, uh,
25:16 or Donald Tusk in Poland, how do you
25:18 turn around and say, well, I'm sorry,
25:20 uh,
25:21 we really didn't tell you the truth.
25:23 Russia doesn't want to conquer Europe.
25:25 Russia isn't interested in going to war.
25:28 Uh, we've been pushing this agenda for
25:30 reasons that have nothing to do with our
25:31 national interests, but we want to stay
25:33 in power because that's effectively what
25:35 they're saying. Starmer's in the same
25:37 boat. It's ridiculous.
25:40 Uh, President Trump doesn't have to go
25:41 that far. He's remote from it. But let's
25:44 go back to something else that you
25:45 brought up, which is very, very
25:47 important. You say, well, Putin has the
25:50 upper hand, at least on the ground.
25:52 That's what counts, Mario. The rest of
25:55 it is crap.
25:56 Are we willing to fight in eastern
25:58 Ukraine? Quick, tell me.
26:01 Answer it
26:02 >> boots on the ground. No boots on the
26:04 ground, that's for sure.
26:05 >> We're not going to put any troops on the
26:06 ground. Absolutely not. We may have
26:09 100,000 troops sitting around in Poland
26:11 and Lithuania and Romania. What they're
26:14 doing is is
26:16 I have no idea. They don't have any
26:18 military mission. They're not ready to
26:20 fight anybody. They're the same old
26:22 force that we've had for 30 years.
26:24 They're not equipped for a a new and
26:26 different warfare.
26:27 Now, we do have headquarters on the
26:29 ground in Europe, one in Germany, from
26:31 which we've been directing operations in
26:33 Ukraine, because the war in Europe is
26:34 really our war.
26:36 We've just expended a lot of Ukrainian
26:38 life in the process.
26:40 But the point is we're not going to
26:41 fight on the ground. Are the Europeans
26:43 going to fight on the ground?
26:45 We've just had the president of Poland,
26:47 Duda, the new president say absolutely
26:50 not. No Polish troops will go into
26:52 Ukraine. Okay.
26:54 So
26:55 what are we going to do?
26:57 >> Economic pressure? See like the last the
26:59 last card the last card that the West
27:01 has, obviously there's no support for
27:03 boots on the ground, I think we all
27:04 agree, but the last card is economic
27:05 pressure, you know. It's debatable how
27:07 well it's working. Doesn't seem to be
27:08 working too well. Now he's trying
27:10 through India, but with India leaning
27:12 more towards China and Russia, it
27:13 doesn't look like this is working
27:15 either.
27:17 >> Well it's
27:18 this is a very important point and
27:20 you're making you're making the correct
27:21 assessment. It doesn't work.
27:23 What we're seeing happen in the world is
27:25 a split
27:26 between the Western financial system
27:29 that has dominated the world certainly
27:31 since 1945.
27:33 We did have this massive change
27:35 undertaken under Nixon in '73 with
27:37 abandoning the gold standard.
27:39 But the bottom line is that we in the
27:41 West, we're talking about basically
27:42 London and and New York City and
27:44 Washington, we've controlled
27:47 transactions,
27:48 trade, financial operations around the
27:52 world non-stop. That's ending.
27:55 And so the world is splitting and you
27:57 have on this side now something we call
27:59 BRICS.
28:00 And BRICS miraculously in the last few
28:03 years has developed parallel
28:05 institutions.
28:07 They have the Swift equivalent that is
28:09 actually faster, more convenient and
28:11 operates better than our own Swift
28:13 system. In the meantime, we are losing
28:16 ground because major powers in Asia,
28:19 major powers in South America,
28:22 major powers in Africa are moving away
28:24 from us and moving towards BRICS. So
28:27 we're looking at a split
28:29 in the global financial system.
28:31 If you take China, take India, and
28:35 Russia. Now start adding Brazil and
28:38 South Africa and increasingly I would
28:40 argue much of Africa period.
28:42 I think we're going to see the Saudis
28:44 and others in the Middle East eventually
28:46 migrate in the same direction. They're
28:48 migrating away from us and they're
28:50 migrating in the direction of BRICS.
28:52 This is a this is an event
28:55 that is almost well it probably is as
28:57 important as 1492.
29:00 Now people say what do you mean 1492?
29:02 Well 1492 was the beginning of the end
29:06 of Ottoman power in the Middle East
29:08 because trade shifted. Gold, silver,
29:12 wealth, power shifted away from the
29:15 Middle East and the Middle East was no
29:17 longer capable of transporting and doing
29:20 business between China, India, and the
29:22 West. And the West now had a huge source
29:26 of gold and income that came out of the
29:28 New World.
29:29 This promoted a complete split and we
29:32 saw the Western world take off. It took
29:35 off for many reasons, but now in the
29:37 Western world with all of that wealth
29:39 there was a huge demand for science and
29:41 technology and commerce.
29:43 We're seeing something similar to that
29:45 happen today.
29:47 Only it's not because we discovered a
29:48 new civilization or a new country
29:50 halfway around the world. It's not
29:52 because we got to Mars and landed there
29:54 and found something new.
29:56 It's because China, India, most of Asia,
30:00 most of Africa, and increasingly large
30:02 portions of South America are all moving
30:04 away from us into a new gold-backed
30:07 system of currencies.
30:10 And we and our West Europeans, maybe
30:12 some East Europeans, but certainly West
30:14 Europeans are standing around wondering
30:17 where are we headed?
30:18 And where is Australia going to go? Or
30:21 New Zealand? Where do they migrate? Are
30:23 they going to sit with us or are they
30:25 going to migrate in in a different
30:27 direction?
30:28 I I think all of these things have to be
30:30 viewed
30:31 against the backdrop of everything we're
30:33 discussing. This isn't just about what's
30:35 going to happen in Ukraine. The war in
30:37 Ukraine is effectively over.
30:39 The Russians have won. They will
30:41 determine what happens in in eastern and
30:43 western Ukraine. That's coming.
30:46 And eventually the people that live on
30:47 that border, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia,
30:49 Poland,
30:50 Slovakia, Hungary and Romania and
30:53 Moldova, they're all going to have to do
30:55 business with the Russians whether they
30:56 like it or not.
30:57 Hungary knows that, Slovakia knows that,
31:00 Romania knows that, but they were
31:01 cheated out of their electoral victory
31:04 by a globalist. But the globalists are
31:06 on the run. They're in retreat. They're
31:09 going to lose power.
31:10 It'll be interesting to see what happens
31:12 after that.
31:13 Now I don't I can't predict what happens
31:15 with us, those who are not in BRICS and
31:17 part of it.
31:18 I don't know what we'll do. I don't
31:20 think we can go to go to a gold-backed
31:22 system. I'm not sure that we have enough
31:24 gold to do it.
31:25 Maybe we're talking about a
31:26 digitization, digital currency. I have
31:29 no idea. But what I'm saying is this
31:31 split
31:32 is a function of everything happening
31:35 not only in Ukraine, but also in the
31:37 Middle East.
31:38 And if you notice something else,
31:40 Mr. Trump has made it increasingly clear
31:43 that he is largely disinterested in
31:45 going to war with China.
31:49 That's very important. Remember Remember
31:51 we had this pivot to China. We have to
31:54 pivot to China.
31:55 >> Yeah.
31:56 >> Never happened.
31:57 >> And what was Biden's statement? Would
31:58 you Would you Would you defend Taiwan if
32:00 China invades Taiwan? The answer was
32:01 direct yes in that interview.
32:03 >> No.
32:04 No, I
32:05 >> under Biden under Biden administration
32:07 that seems now it's less hawkish towards
32:08 China.
32:09 >> Yeah. Oh, I I think
32:11 Donald Trump wants nothing to do with a
32:13 war against China.
32:14 If anything, I think right now in the
32:16 White House, he and his
32:18 little band of advisors are trying to
32:20 figure out how do we get out from
32:22 underneath this terrible tariff war.
32:25 You know, this tariff war has done
32:26 nothing but destruction.
32:28 You know, it it doesn't
32:29 >> like
32:30 I I feel like we're pushing
32:32 Let me know what you think of this. It
32:33 It seems that the US is doing this to
32:35 itself. It's pushed Russia and India to
32:38 China by, you know, through the Ukraine
32:40 war and by NATO's expansion. It pushed
32:43 um it potentially is going to push Arab
32:45 countries towards China. They're all
32:46 going to be very upset what's happening
32:47 in Gaza and now they're striking Qatar.
32:49 They're not going to be too happy. All
32:50 the Gulf countries are uniting, you
32:51 know, Saudi, the UAE, which are rivals
32:54 to Qatar um are now standing by Qatar's
32:57 side. And with the tariff war, it's
32:59 pushed you know
33:01 historically US allies
33:03 to kind of seek alternatives. Um
33:06 it looks like it's a it's a
33:07 self-inflicting wound. Maybe we can
33:09 reverse revert course and say maybe as
33:11 in us, you know, the US and and allies,
33:13 maybe we can revert course and kind of
33:15 fix fix a lot of those issues.
33:17 Ukraine war ends and maybe normalize
33:19 relations with India again, sort out all
33:21 the tariff issues, normalize relations
33:23 with Russia. There's hope there.
33:25 Hopefully the war in Gaza ends soon.
33:26 Doesn't look too good there. And maybe
33:28 things normalize in the Middle East, but
33:30 it just keeps getting worse and worse.
33:32 >> Yeah, I I think it's going to get a
33:33 little worse
33:35 over the next few months because we have
33:37 a financial system
33:39 in the United States that is just as
33:42 fragile as the financial system in Great
33:44 Britain
33:45 and the financial system in France and
33:47 in Germany. We're we're all bound up
33:49 together in this catastrophe. They're
33:52 ahead of us. In other words, they're
33:53 preceding us on the path down to hell.
33:56 But we'll get there.
33:58 And it's only when you are finally in
33:59 hell and you look around and say, gee,
34:02 didn't want to get here. Now I want to
34:04 get out. That's when things will change.
34:06 Now things will change faster once that
34:09 decision is made in Europe because they
34:11 have parliamentary systems.
34:14 And they can toss governments out and
34:16 bring new governments in and get new
34:18 leadership almost overnight.
34:20 We're not organized that way.
34:23 So it's going to be much harder here in
34:24 the United States
34:26 when it strikes.
34:26 >> make What do you make of the name change
34:28 as well from the Department of Defense
34:30 renaming it back to the Department of
34:31 War? Optics, anything meant behind it?
34:36 >> Uh I can't conceive of anything less
34:39 significant
34:41 and less important than this.
34:43 Now, let me [clears throat] back up a
34:44 minute and explain something I know this
34:47 is important to President Trump, and I
34:49 happen to agree with him in this sense.
34:51 He's been very frustrated
34:53 with an American military establishment
34:55 that has focused on all of this
34:57 interventionism and nation building.
35:00 And it became sort of painfully
35:02 politically correct. I mean, I can go
35:04 back 50 years to the decision to
35:07 integrate women
35:09 into the service academies and then
35:10 bringing more and more women into the
35:12 armed forces
35:13 has has absolutely done nothing for our
35:16 readiness or war fighting capability at
35:18 all.
35:19 Anybody that's remotely honest will tell
35:21 you the truth. That's been very very
35:23 bad.
35:25 And if you look at other nations that
35:26 are maintaining effective armed forces,
35:28 a good example of course are the
35:29 Russians.
35:30 They do not integrate women into those
35:32 formations. They know
35:34 the risks involved. It makes no sense.
35:38 And so [clears throat]
35:39 you have a problem where
35:41 the the young men that we used to set
35:43 out to attract into the military,
35:46 they're not showing up
35:49 because you turn to an 18 19 20 year old
35:51 man who's in reasonably good physical
35:53 shape who wants to challenge a military
35:56 service, who wants to prove himself as a
35:58 man as in his youth.
36:00 And he's told, well, you're who are you?
36:03 You're no good.
36:04 This this little
36:06 100 lb female is 5 ft 4 is just as good
36:09 as you are.
36:11 Well, if she's just as good as I am,
36:13 then you don't need me.
36:15 So you're you know, the whole fabric
36:18 of military service has been dangerously
36:22 weakened.
36:23 President Trump understands that.
36:25 He's trying to get this war fighting
36:27 focus back into people's minds.
36:30 But changing a name does nothing.
36:34 I I understand what he's thinking.
36:36 But you know, I could turn around and
36:37 say, well, Mario, from now on, your name
36:41 Rudolph.
36:43 You're still Mario, right? It's not
36:45 going to change anything.
36:46 >> Doesn't make me a German expert.
36:48 >> Yeah, whatever. But, you know, it's
36:50 silly. It's silly in that sense, but I
36:52 do understand
36:54 what lies beneath his his reasoning.
36:57 And he's frustrated with that. That's
36:58 why he's very frustrated with the senior
37:00 officers.
37:01 >> And last topic I want to ask you about
37:03 something I don't know much about at
37:04 all. I haven't had time to look into it,
37:05 and that's the developments in
37:06 Venezuela. I think you hinted at it at
37:07 the beginning when you said striking an
37:09 unarmed unarmed boat. The warship was
37:11 moved off the coast. It looks like
37:13 military posturing for me. I just cannot
37:15 fathom anything happening there. Um, but
37:17 then that boat got struck. I was pretty
37:18 surprised.
37:20 What you know, what do you make of these
37:22 developments and should we be concerned?
37:25 >> [clears throat]
37:25 >> Again, President Trump is very
37:27 impulsive.
37:29 And that's what you saw at Elmendorf Air
37:32 Force Base in Alaska.
37:34 It was an impulse meeting.
37:36 Let's hold this meeting. We'll go in
37:38 there. We'll talk to them. And I know
37:40 Putin. I get along with him. We could
37:42 work this out.
37:45 Forget it. Had no chance of success.
37:48 So now, well, I'm fed up with Venezuela.
37:50 He listens to Secretary Rubio, and Rubio
37:53 has been trying to invade Venezuela for
37:54 years.
37:56 He says, all right, Rubio, we'll go
37:58 teach these people a lesson. Let them
38:00 know what we can do.
38:02 Okay. How's that work? Venezuela
38:04 mobilizes for war.
38:06 The population lines up behind Maduro.
38:10 Is that because they love Maduro? Not
38:12 necessarily. But these people have a
38:14 country. They're proud of their country.
38:16 They have a
38:16 >> same with Iran. Same with Iran when
38:18 Israel struck them.
38:19 >> Of course.
38:20 So the second question is the legitimate
38:23 one that you raised is what are you
38:24 going to do with the what is it? 2,500
38:26 Marines and a few thousand sailors?
38:29 Uh, are you going to nuke these people?
38:31 That's absurd. So what's your plan?
38:34 Uh, and then we have supposedly groups
38:36 of mercenaries organized by the CIA,
38:40 potentially in Colombia or maybe in
38:42 Guyana. I don't know. And this was all
38:44 the idea from years ago, we'll have a
38:46 regime change so that we can put
38:48 somebody in who'll be our puppet.
38:51 I don't see that working.
38:52 So the real question is what do we want
38:54 to do and if you want access
38:57 to oil and gas, let me explain how you
39:00 get that in Latin America in a place
39:01 like Venezuela. First of all, the
39:03 Chinese have already offered to come in
39:05 there and try to rebuild and refit all
39:08 of the oil and gas infrastructure.
39:10 Mario, we have the best the best energy
39:15 experts in the world. We have the finest
39:17 oil and gas engineers and technicians
39:20 anywhere.
39:21 We have a few thousand available right
39:24 now that we could send down to
39:26 Venezuela, get Venezuela up and running
39:29 in months.
39:31 And that's really what Venezuela needs
39:33 because their economy is in terrible
39:36 condition. The population is suffering.
39:39 That needs to improve.
39:41 So what do you do if that's what you
39:42 want? You want access to the oil and we
39:44 think they may have the largest oil
39:46 reserves in the world. The problem is
39:48 they're very deep.
39:49 And we are experts at deep oil drilling
39:53 and gas.
39:55 Well, instead of threatening everybody
39:57 and pouring buckets of filth and abuse
39:59 all over Maduro because you don't like
40:00 him,
40:02 you have a private meeting with Maduro
40:03 and you say, look, we've had our
40:05 differences in the past.
40:06 We'd really like to be your best
40:08 customer.
40:10 And in order to be your best customer,
40:12 we're willing to commit these assets to
40:15 repair all of this. And oh, by the way,
40:17 we know that there are a few generals in
40:20 the Venezuelan army who been skimming
40:23 cash off the top of the drug trade. Most
40:26 of the drugs come out of Colombia. They
40:28 move through Venezuela, some of them,
40:30 and then out of Venezuela headed
40:32 wherever, north,
40:34 Europe, who knows.
40:35 We'd like to stop that and we can help
40:37 you with these generals because here's
40:40 another flash.
40:42 Maduro doesn't command and control the
40:44 generals in the Venezuelan army
40:46 to to extent that he needs to.
40:48 He has about the same level of influence
40:51 over the Venezuelan army as the
40:52 president of Mexico has over the Mexican
40:55 army.
40:56 These countries are not like western
40:58 countries.
41:00 You go in there and you offer something
41:03 and you negotiate with people and stop
41:06 talking about changing the government.
41:08 Stop talking about changing the society.
41:12 We need to get out of this business once
41:14 and for all. How many times do we have
41:16 to fail?
41:17 How many times have we failed since
41:19 1965?
41:20 Everywhere we've gone to install
41:22 somebody else and create a new
41:24 government only to discover the whole
41:26 thing failed.
41:28 But for some reason this mentality
41:30 inside Washington persists.
41:32 And unfortunately since we're not
41:34 willing to talk to these people
41:36 reasonably, rationally along the lines
41:38 that I just described, we bring out the
41:41 hammer. We show everybody the hammer and
41:43 say we'll hammer you unless you do what
41:45 we want.
41:48 >> How big
41:49 how large is Venezuela? It's huge.
41:52 What are you going to do? [laughter]
41:54 It doesn't it's just silly.
41:57 >> Regime change is is you know I think we
41:59 should learn our lesson by now. It just
42:00 doesn't work.
42:02 Um Colonel, absolute pleasure to speak
42:04 to you and and you know before ending
42:05 the interview you know it's it's hard
42:07 not to mention um
42:09 Vice President JD Vance said in Europe
42:11 the your your enemies within not Russia
42:13 if you remember that statement that
42:14 famous speech um and I want to say the
42:16 same thing not the same thing now to the
42:18 US but something to consider at least
42:20 the polarization we're seeing since the
42:21 assassination of Charlie Kirk.
42:24 Um what was your reaction when you first
42:25 saw it and any thoughts on it? Not sure
42:27 how closely you're following it.
42:29 >> Well I you know I I've talked to Charlie
42:31 Kirk in some interviews and he's a very
42:34 nice person.
42:35 He's certainly not a threatening
42:37 individual.
42:38 He has a
42:39 a lovely wife and nice children.
42:42 Now I do know that he has accepted
42:44 millions of dollars in in support from
42:47 wealthy Jewish donors.
42:49 And over the last 30 days or so, he
42:52 apparently has talked about abandoning
42:55 the positions that he's held on Israel
42:57 for a long time.
42:59 And that may have had something to do
43:01 with it, but I don't know how you would
43:03 possibly make that connection.
43:05 In other words, how do you prove that?
43:08 I I don't know.
43:09 I I am looking at this young man that
43:12 they found that they're accusing of
43:14 having executed this.
43:16 The whole thing looks a lot like Butler,
43:17 Pennsylvania.
43:19 What happened there with President
43:21 Trump? And the patsy on the roof
43:24 that was instantly killed, whose body
43:26 then was cremated, and we've never found
43:29 anyone who was responsible for the
43:31 killing or the attempted
43:33 killing of Trump.
43:34 I I'm very skeptical. I think
43:37 in our country, institutions which we
43:40 have historically revered, like the FBI
43:44 in the Justice Department, are now
43:46 institutions that are no longer credible
43:49 in the minds of many Americans.
43:51 So I don't have an answer as to why.
43:54 I don't think that this is evidence for
43:56 some
43:58 widespread readiness to go to civil war.
44:00 I think you've got a a larger problem
44:02 with just
44:03 massive criminality. I mean, we've had
44:06 young women over the last several days
44:08 chopped into meat, murdered for no
44:10 apparent reason by people who had
44:13 already been arrested multiple times and
44:15 then released.
44:18 [clears throat] I I'm I don't want to
44:19 mix apples and orange juice, but I'm
44:21 saying that
44:22 we just don't know what was behind this
44:25 with
44:26 Charlie Kirk.
44:27 >> Yeah. Now hopefully get the answers. I I
44:29 >> He was a very decent, honorable person
44:31 as far as I can tell.
Judged by claude-sonnet-5.5-eu on 2026-11-14 20:21 UTC. A flag means “worth a look”; a person decides.