Date: Tuesday, 14 October 2025
2 articles:
Lawrence Wilkerson: U.S. Soon to Be at War Against the Islamic World
&
Scott Ritter Presents the Russian View of U.S. Foreign Policy
https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/lawrence-wilkerson-us-soon-to-be
https://theduran.com/lawrence-wilkerson-u-s-soon-to-be-at-war-against-the-islamic
Lawrence Wilkerson: U.S. Soon to Be at War Against the Islamic World
13 October 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMewx4U3PE
“Point of No Return: U.S. vs Iran Is Now UNAVOIDABLE! Col. Wilkerson”
Jordanna Pinheiro | Labellebags Crochet, 13 October 2025
0:00
NIMA ALKORSHID: They’re
0:02
either moving aerial tankers from Europe
0:06
from the United States to Europe then
0:08
from Europe to better and the same
0:11
LAWRENCE WILKERSON: just like they just like they did before
0:13
the last attack.
0:14
NIMA: Yeah. What is that, do you think? Are we
0:17
going to — how close are we to war
0:20
between the two? LAWRENCE: Bibi, you probably know
0:23
this. BB went back to Israel and after
0:27
telling Donald Trump that everything was
0:29
copacetic with the ceasefire deal and
0:31
the and the ultimate end of the war in
0:33
Gaza, went back in Hebrew and told
0:36
everybody no such thing. The war is
0:38
going on. The IDF's going to kill them
0:40
all. We're going to finish the war. So
0:43
that duplicitous lying sack of
0:45
proverbial horse turd [Netanyahu] is doing it again.
0:49
Why? because he knows what's coming. He
0:53
knows what's coming. He's not going to
0:54
have to talk to Donald Trump. He's not
0:56
going to have to apologize. He's not
0:58
going to have to get out on bended knee.
0:59
He wouldn't anyway. He kept his
1:02
coalition together, which he probably
1:04
wouldn't have done had he come back and
1:05
said what he said to Trump about
1:07
agreeing. And he knows he's going to war
1:09
with Iran and he knows the United States
1:11
is going to follow him. That's going to
1:13
obviate, that's going to cancel
1:16
everything he said or promised to Trump.
1:19
So he doesn't care.
1:23
We are going to war, Nima. We're going
1:25
to war with Iran again.
1:30
NIMA: What would be the benefit of the new
1:32
war? What is the main objective in your
1:34
opinion?
1:35
LAWRENCE: Well, first of all, and overriding
1:38
everything else is preservation of BB
1:42
BB Netanyahu's coalition and BB
1:44
Netanyahu, period. His power and his
1:47
position. That's the first objective.
1:50
The second objective is to keep the
1:52
United States from causing him to have
1:54
to do something he doesn't want to do
1:56
with respect to Gaza, Syria, Lebanon,
2:00
and elsewhere. I fear I'm hearing from
2:03
contacts in Baghdad, for example, that
2:06
they're getting ready to go to war as
2:08
well. I'm hearing that Egypt might be on
2:12
the war path. Also, I'm hearing that
2:15
remnants of the forces in Lebanon, which
2:18
mostly are Hezbollah, are ready to go.
2:21
I'm hearing there are elements elsewhere
2:23
in the region that might enter the fray
2:25
with air power. Think Saudi Arabia,
2:28
think Qatar, for example.
2:30
So, and I'm also hearing, and this is
2:34
very disturbing, and I don't know
2:36
exactly how to take it, but I'm hearing
2:38
from people who met with Pezeshkian, the
2:41
president, and met with other Iranians
2:43
in New York. Not only that, they have
2:48
changed the FATWA from one that bans
2:52
nuclear weapons to one that bans the use
2:55
of nuclear weapons, which sort of clears
2:58
the way for them to go ahead and build
3:01
one, if they haven't already. And I'm
3:04
also hearing that they're not going to
3:06
just attack Israel, they're going to
3:09
attack other assets in the region. And
3:12
that's the way it was put to me. And I
3:14
asked the question, do you mean Saudi
3:17
Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait? What? No, I mean
3:22
US facilities in those countries.
3:26
So, they're going to attack the US
3:28
outright. Yes.
3:32
Is that meant to be a deterrent? Is it
3:34
meant to be a bluff? I don't know. Um, I
3:38
wouldn't be surprised if they've had it,
3:40
if they're fed up with this, and if
3:42
Israel does commence the war again in a
3:45
serious way that it's all over for
3:48
Israel, plus they will do the damage
3:51
that they can to the United States
3:53
facilities in the region. And they could
3:55
do a lot of damage, a hell of a lot of
3:57
damage.
4:01
that they could sink an aircraft carrier
4:04
if it were in range of one of their high
4:06
velocity missiles or a spread of those
4:09
missiles
4:10
is I would say 60 to 70% a possibility
4:16
and then we're off to the races. Nima I
4:18
mean we're off to a regional war. One
4:21
wonders what Russia and China will do if
4:24
this starts in that flagrant
4:27
overwhelming way. What will they do?
4:33
NIMA: So what's this story of peace plan in?
4:39
What is he trying to get by the peace
4:41
plan? Is that a
4:44
some sort of cover for what they're
4:46
doing?
4:47
LAWRENCE: The one BB, the one BB allegedly signed,
4:49
up to? Well, I think that that's
4:52
ultimately Tony Blair. That's
4:54
essentially Tony Blair running some sort
4:56
of consortium that will make Gaza, you
4:58
know, into the thing Trump wants to make
5:00
it into, a huge enterprise that will make
5:03
money and so forth and so on. And maybe
5:06
it has a patina of a potential for a
5:08
dual state eventually in order to
5:11
satisfy the members of the Abraham's
5:13
accord and get them back into it. I
5:15
don't think it's going to work. And I
5:16
know it's not going to work with what BB
5:18
went back and said in Hebrew, which was,
5:21
“I didn't mean any of that. We are going
5:24
to continue this war. We're going to
5:26
continue it until Hamas is exterminated.”
5:30
The hostages be damned. He didn't say
5:32
that, but that's essentially what was
5:34
implied. And “I know I'm safe, at least
5:37
for the interim, because I'm going to
5:39
war with Iran and the United States will
5:41
have no choice but to come in with me.”
5:46
NIMA: Larry, maybe I'm so much I'm so much
5:50
pessimist about what Donald Trump is
5:52
doing. But it seems to me that Donald
5:55
Trump has came out by this sort of plan.
5:59
He he he has come out but by this plan
6:03
because of Netanyahu's position in Israel
6:06
because those people who are forcing
6:09
putting a lot of pressure on Net has his
6:11
administration about the hostages,
6:14
right? And they're trying to tell those
6:17
people, so we are trying to do
6:20
everything. Look at Donald Trump. He put
6:22
out a peace plan. They're not going to
6:24
sign for it. No,
6:25
we have to continue the conflict.
6:28
You know, they're somehow legitimizing
6:30
what Neta is doing in
6:33
LAWRENCE: I think, I think Netanyahu wrote the
6:35
hostages off a long time ago. I really
6:37
do. I don't think he gives a damn about
6:39
them. and he doesn't give a damn about
6:41
them because he feels like they're an
6:43
impediment to his finishing, finishing
6:46
the job as it were.
6:50
NIMA: Yeah. It's it after all Larry if
6:54
something now you mentioned Iran would
6:56
attack the the US bases in the Middle
6:59
East but
7:02
isn't that somehow strange that — do you
7:06
do you think that Turkey knows what's
7:09
going on? Do they really care about
7:11
what's going on in the Middle East? What
7:13
is the role of Turkey?
7:15
LAWRENCE: Turkey well Turkey is a NATO member. the
7:20
the staunch anchor of the southern flank
7:23
of NATO which is not saying much today
7:26
because NATO is falling apart.
7:29
I think Erdogan, given his previous
7:32
performance in all this debacle that's
7:34
happening around him, would just sit
7:36
there and watch. I don't think he's
7:39
going. Now were Israel to start to
7:42
topple seriously topple fall into chaos
7:45
Jews going everywhere. I mean that's
7:48
what you're going to have. I found out
7:50
the other day, Nima, that over a million
7:52
and a half Jews have already left
7:53
Israel. Million and a half. With all the
7:56
strictures that Netanyahu has put on
7:58
travel, still a million and a half have
8:01
had enough money or enough connections to
8:04
get out
8:06
in in that event. If it were completely
8:09
collapsing and it weren't nuclear,
8:12
Erdogan might move. But that's the only
8:14
way that guy will move.
8:19
NIMA: Do you when it comes to the defense
8:23
treaty between Saudi Arabia and
8:26
Pakistan,
8:28
is it gonna
8:29
LAWRENCE: Good question. Good question.
8:33
Ask it. Ask it.
8:36
NIMA: How is that going to play out? LAWRENCE: Uh, very
8:39
good question because I think that's
8:41
probably signed in blood
8:44
and it's probably signed in blood not
8:47
necessarily with the civilian leadership
8:50
but with the ISI and the Pakistani
8:53
military and in particular with that
8:55
portion of both that more or less looks
8:59
over nuclear weapons.
9:01
Um, and that means that Saudi Arabia has
9:04
a nuclear weapon at its back and call
9:06
whenever it wants to use it. You know,
9:08
I'm of a firm belief that when Muhammad
9:11
bin Salman first became defense
9:15
minister, then took the portfolio,
9:18
one of the things he did was go to
9:20
Islamabad and spend about 20 billion of
9:22
Saudi money, 20 billion US.
9:25
I think that was a a contract with
9:28
Islamabad with regard to at that time
9:31
Iran possibly developing a nuclear
9:34
weapon. Islamabad said to him, you will
9:36
have 20. I don't know what the number
9:39
is, but 20 is sort of military. I'd want
9:42
about 20. So 20 weapons will come your
9:46
way instantly when Iran tests or you
9:48
know Iran has a nuclear weapon. That's
9:50
the agree. Now it's been put in blood. I
9:53
mean, you know, it is a defense pact.
9:56
Now, I don't know if that's a portion of
9:58
it, but I do know that my contacts tell
10:01
me that it includes if it's nuclear,
10:03
we'll be with you. We we will be on your
10:05
side. Um, so we've got a whole new ball
10:08
game.
10:10
And it's not just Iran and Pakistan.
10:14
It's also the fact that China is a
10:16
supporter of Pakistan, but it's also a
10:18
fact that China has really got vested
10:21
interest in that southern railroad that
10:23
comes up through Iran now. And it's also
10:26
the fact that you have a reproachement
10:30
between these previous enemies, Iran and
10:35
Riyadh [Saudi Arabia] and others in that complex. What
10:39
does that mean in terms of what might
10:42
happen to US facilities in the region
10:45
were Iran to feel like it had to attack
10:48
them because it was first attacked by
10:51
Israel and the United States? Would the
10:54
Saudis even care about US facilities
10:57
being attacked as long as Iran only
10:59
attacked them? No oil facilities
11:01
involved, just US facilities. We've
11:05
already seen what happens when
11:07
Qatar gets attacked by Israel. Would
11:10
they just sit there if it were only US
11:14
facilities that were attacked? I mean,
11:16
you could attack Al Udeid Air Base [in Qatar] and just attack
11:18
the aircraft on the surface. You
11:20
wouldn't have to do that much damage to
11:22
the airfield. You could just wipe out
11:24
the US aircraft on the surface. And a
11:27
surprise attack would pretty much do
11:29
that. And it would be I think it would
11:32
be a surprise. I I think this is not
11:35
something that would be expected by
11:37
US Central Command.
11:40
…
——
MY COMMENT: Apparently, Wilkerson’s extensive contacts in the region believe that the U.S. Government does what Israel’s Government wants it to do. If this is true, then the U.S. empire is really the Israeli empire.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/scott-ritter-presents-the-russian
https://theduran.com/scott-ritter-presents-the-russian-view-of-u-s-foreign-policy/
Scott Ritter Presents the Russian View of U.S. Foreign Policy
13 October 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)
He says that Russia’s view is realistic, which America’s and the rest of The West’s is not. I think everyone should hear Scott Ritter and read the transcript that I offer here of his complete statement, because I fundamentally agree with what he says, and I believe that all of it is extremely worth considering. However, I don’t agree with Ritter when he says that Trump is well-intentioned but stupid; I think that Trump is a stupid psychopath and liar — I believe that in regard to motivations on The Western side, Ritter really doesn’t understand how plain evil the Deep States (the billionaires and their international-affairs agents, such as heads-of-state) in The West actually are. A typical example of that pervasive corruptness in The West (the U.S. empire) is this; another is this; another is this; and Ritter ignores this corruptness, which is pervasive throughout the entire U.S. empire, and which psychopathy — from their billionaires, which control it — MOTIVATES their foreign policies. So, I think that Ritter doesn’t recognize that Trump (like all U.S. Presidents in this Century) is a psychopath. (Indeed, on October 13th, Brian Berletic documented that even at the start of Trump’s second term, he had his Pentagon planning to supply long-range U.S. missiles to Ukraine for striking deep into Russia in order that the U.S. would defeat Russia from Ukraine. All of Trump’s rhetoric to arbitrate between Zelensky and Putin for a peaceful and quick end to this war were secretly predicated upon his actual intention to defeat Russia from Ukraine. Ritter misses all of this reality.) But I think that as far as the international-affairs facts-on-the-ground are concerned, Ritter is 100% correct. His expertise is only military, and he is speaking about the military facts-on-the-ground. This is why I here present all of the interview, both to see and hear it, and to read it, for anyone who wants t know objectively which side is winning and which is losing in Ukraine. Best for the quickest full comprehension of it will be hearing it while reading the transcript that I am providing of it — getting this in both ways at once, which is good because all of this goes by so fast, and Ritter’s military analysis is quite dense.
But, first, here is a highlight from it, which hits each of his main points, and serves as a good summary of it:
“What are you buying time for, if you're Europeans? For Ukraine to get their asses kicked? Okay, Russia's ready to play that game. As I told you, the casualties are unsustainable [for Ukraine] — 90,000 a month, soon to go up to 100,000 a month for Ukraine. [At 3:10 in the interview, he had already said that “Russia's losing, you know, one dead for every 10, 13, 15 Ukrainian dead” soldiers.] You can't sustain that. So what are you buying time for? It's not as though there's a rainbow and you're going to hit a pot of gold here. It's a disaster — it's just a bridge collapsed off a cliff and you're going down into hell. That's the ride they're on. So all they're doing is killing more Ukrainians, and they don't care about that. But they're also bankrupting Europe. I mean, come on, Nima, you're smarter than I am — I know it. That's why I come on your show, because I learn a hell of a lot more from your questions than anybody learns from my answers. You know what's going on in Germany right now. You know the state of their economy. You know the French government's about to collapse — literally. I mean, it may not last the month, and the month's almost over. And you know, when the French government collapses — Europe's already said the next government will, you know, when Macron goes — he may go — they said it will be the Putinists. The Putinists will be in — Marine Le Pen and all that. Well, that's the end of France [as being a U.S. colony, I would add here]. And guess what else is going to happen? AfD is the most popular political party in Germany today. And I think the lady who runs it came out and said, yeah, when we win, we're out of the EU. We're done. Finished. Goodbye. Sayonara. That's the end of Europe. If France and Germany drop out of the EU, Europe doesn't exist anymore — unified Europe, it's finished, it's gone. And then you'll see a fracturing like you've never seen before. So what are you buying time for? People have to understand: the more time you buy, the more you sustain this absolutely insane, failed process that's captured Europe since the beginning of 2022, the more you guarantee an outcome which is very good for Russia and very bad for Europe. And it's not good for the United States [either]. I mean, we need stability. I'm an American who doesn't believe in the European Union — I really don't. I think it was a failed experiment from the get-go. But I'm also an American who says it's in our best interests. You know that I'm sympathetic to the Russian point of view. I believe history is on the right side of Russia. And I ask the Russians this all the time: is it in your interests to see Europe collapse? Is it in your interest to see NATO fail? And the Russians are like, no, we sort of like stability. We don't want Europe to go away. We don't want NATO to go away. We just want them to leave us alone, maybe learn to live in peace and harmony. The last thing Russia wants is chaos in Europe. That's not good for Russia. Chaos is bad. And yet, the people who are opposing a Russian victory and dragging out this war in Ukraine by playing the delay game with Donald Trump are just guaranteeing a really, really bad outcome for Europe. A really bad outcome. The end of the EU, the end of NATO. And this is the scary part, because we don't know what's going to happen, but we have some hints. The whole idea of the European Union was to make sure that there were no more large-scale ground wars in Europe anymore [I disagree with that, and view the motivation to have been what the CIA’s motivation for it was when they created it]. Well, they failed. We've got one going on in Ukraine right now. But you do know that within the NATO alliance — Mark Rutte says it's the strongest alliance, it's never been stronger. I mean, my God, it is so strong. I'm so impressed. We can bench press more than the mayoral candidate of New York City. But that's not saying much, since he can only bench press 135 pounds, assisted. So anyway, let's take that out of the way. The point is, within NATO right now, in the center of Europe, you have too many NATOs showing up. You've got one mini-NATO that is — I think it's Kosovo, Croatia, and Albania. I think Croatia and Albania have that NATO membership thing going for them. Kosovo doesn't — it's not a NATO state. So they've created a military alliance, a security framework that's outside of NATO, with two NATO members. In opposition to them, we get Hungary, Slovakia, and Serbia — not a NATO member — and they've created an alternative, an opposing military bloc. So when Europe falls apart, and it will, we're going to see wars in Europe. We're going to see wars that are going to be horrific, wars that are going to rival what's going on in Ukraine in terms of death and destruction. Europe is condemning itself to another hundred years of conflict. And the conflict won't be limited to these marginal states. We've got Poland right now making some harsh rhetoric against the Banderists. And, you know, if you listen to Naryshkin, the head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, one of Russia's objectives might be to rid itself of the Banderist cancer by somehow having Western Ukraine fall under Polish control. There will be a purging like you haven't seen. There will be retribution. It will be ugly. But if Poland regains its eastern territories, what are the Germans going to say about Silesia and Pomerania and East Prussia, which they had to give to Poland to compensate for the land that was taken by the Soviet Union? You think the Germans are going to sit there idly and go, yeah, that's all right? No. So now we're looking at, what, a German-Polish war? Who's going to side with the Poles? The Balts? Who's going to side with the Germans? I don't know. Maybe France. Maybe not. Maybe France won't. So now you've got a war involving France and Germany, although I find that unlikely, but it could happen. The British — they're everywhere causing trouble. They've signed an agreement with Poland. They've extended their nuclear umbrella to Poland. So now, if the Germans and the Poles start to get into a fight over Silesia, Pomerania, and East Prussia, where is the UK going to come in? And if the UK jumps in, France has sort of extended theirs too. So now Germany is going to try and say, well, we need nukes — either to develop them themselves or, hey, Russia, we'd like to talk a little bit. This thing, what we conceive Europe as being, won't be anymore. It's over unless they stop this insanity right now. Stop it right now. I'm not saying the EU deserves to exist. What I'm saying is, for the betterment of mankind, Europe doesn't need to slip into chaos and anarchy. It's already got so many problems — the immigration problem. I mean, if Germany was invaded today, only 16% of the male population said they'd be willing to give their lives in defense of Germany. That's if Germany was invaded — 16%. What happens if Germany follows through on its promise to go to Ukraine? What percentage of German men are going to say, "Yeah, we're going to go die in Ukraine"? None. Nobody in Europe wants to die in Ukraine. And yet NATO and Europe are crucifying themselves on that cross. Anyway, the Russians don't want that. The Russians don't want that kind of instability. Russia likes predictability. Russia likes to know what's going to happen. It's easier to formulate policy that way. It's easier to allocate resources if you have a good idea of what the future is going to be. So the idea that Russia is gloating over the collapse of Europe and the collapse of NATO is just an absurd notion. Russia prefers stability. Russia prefers predictability. And right now we have nothing but instability — unpredictability, unpredictability.”
——
Here’s the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_Ew8e-6Ruk
“Russia’s Shocking Move to Collapse It All | Scott Ritter"
AzizGaming, 12 October 2025
Here’s its transcript:
Nima Alkorshid: I don't see Europe needing any sort of weapons. They're not fighting anyone. He [Trump] knows these weapons are going to Ukraine if they get them, the Europeans. And he confessed that he's concerned about what's going on in terms of casualties. How is it possible that you send more weapons and at the same time are concerned about what's going on there?
Scott Ritter: Nima, you’re going to go gray trying to imagine rational thinking with Donald Trump's Ukraine policy. It's impossible. It's mission impossible. Donald Trump... This isn't about national security policy. This isn't about foreign policy. This is about domestic policy. Donald Trump is trying to appease a domestic audience — and several domestic audiences at the same time. He has his base, who say they're tired of American money being sent off to fund Ukraine. And then he has his political opposition, or what I would say are the traitors among us — those who claim to be supportive of Donald Trump, but who actually vehemently oppose any policy that would bring an end to this conflict on terms acceptable to the Russian Federation. And so he has to go through these very complicated machinations. He doesn't care about the dead because he doesn't know how to count the dead. He just repeats numbers that are given to him by people. If he cared about the dead, then he would truly want to know what the reality is and understand why reality matters. He lives in a fantasy land where Russia is losing more manpower than Ukraine, where the Ukrainians are losing manpower at a sustainable rate — meaning that Ukraine has the potential to continue this conflict. Russia, according to his numbers, is not able to sustain this. Therefore, the concept of continuing this war to put pressure on Russia seems to make sense to him. But the fact of the matter is, we now know that 1.7 million Ukrainians are dead or missing. I think there are a couple hundred thousand of those who could be missing, but they're probably dead. That number is going to go up because, according to the same leaked data out of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, 625,000 of those dead or missing are from this year alone. That's 90,000 a month. And that number is going up higher because Russia is just dominating. So this means that every month, another 90,000 — soon to be 100,000 — Ukrainians are dying or disappearing. Those are big numbers. If Trump cared about Ukraine, he'd say we have to bring this war to an end because those numbers are only going to get worse. Russia's numbers are big, but not that big. Right now, it's estimated that Russia’s losing one dead for every 10, 13, or 15 Ukrainian dead. So the Russian numbers are far less than the Ukrainian numbers — still big numbers. I mean, I'm not saying Russia's having a cakewalk here. This is hard fighting. This is some of the most intense combat that's been seen since the Second World War. At least Donald Trump gets that aspect of it right. And he's starting to understand that it's a new kind of war. He spoke the other day about drone warfare and the reality of drone warfare. But, you know, he can't allow himself to be painted into a corner, meaning that he caved in to Russia. So he has to say stupid things and do stupid things. This is why the other day he posted on social media that Ukraine had the ability to attack Russia. Nobody ever won a war on the defense; you have to have the ability to attack. He coupled that with an announcement that the United States — according to a report in the Wall Street Journal — was going to sell 3,000-some-odd extended-range ATACMS missiles, or I don't know what the "A" stands for, to Ukraine. And on the surface of it, you say, well, but wasn't it Donald Trump who realized back in December of 2024 that the Biden administration's green-lighting of the use of ATACMS missiles for targeting Russian strategic assets brought us to the brink of nuclear war? Trump recognized that. That's why he said, I won't continue that policy. Now he's doing that policy, just using a different weapon system. But let's parse this out, because that's what he said. He's posturing right now so that nobody can say, you're not supporting Ukraine. He said, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We're just not paying for it. But NATO is paying for it. Remember those 10 Patriot batteries that they were going to provide? The full complement. I mean, I love that term, the full complement. It's just, it's so wholesome. It makes you feel really good and safe and secure. And now I guess we're providing them with the full complement of ERAM missiles too. But those Patriot batteries will never be delivered to Ukraine. First of all, they have to be produced. You have to get in line. There are a lot of people looking for Patriot batteries and Patriot missiles. You know, Israel used a whole bunch of these and needs replacements. The United States doesn't have any left. We need to beef up our forces. So once we start producing them and get them to Europe so they can be transferred to Ukraine, we're talking 2027, 2028. There won't be a Ukraine by then. It's not going to last much longer. The ERAM is a system conceived in 2023. It didn't exist before that. In fact, it doesn't exist. I mean, they've spent two years developing it. I think it might have passed its last trial, but it's not in serial production yet. That means that if you're building it, you're building one-offs for testing purposes. They're not designed to be given to Ukraine yet. And yet, in six weeks, Donald Trump says he'll begin delivery. That means that, let's assume to make that announcement, the system has now passed its final evaluation. The maximum output that the United States will have, with everything going full speed, is a thousand missiles a year. That means that to get to what Donald Trump is talking about, we're looking at least three and a half years down the road before that full complement gets there. Some missiles may be delivered — a handful, a dozen to start — but then there's the fine print: Ukraine can't use these missiles without America's permission. Only America gets to designate the targets. And if you think Donald Trump is going to allow the United States to designate targets for the ERAM missiles, knowing that in doing so you close the door on any peace possibility because you become a direct participant in the war, that isn't going to happen. Everything gets pushed off six months. I think Donald Trump is hoping that in six months, there'll be a new reality on the ground — one that compels the Ukrainians to accept the Russian terms without compromise and brings this war to an end. Otherwise, this war will continue until Russia accomplishes all of its objectives. And unfortunately, to achieve those objectives, Russia will be called upon to destroy the Ukrainian army. There are 800,000 of them in there today. I think Russia, by the time this is finished, will end up killing another 250,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. That's the way war goes. So, you know, this is the reality. Donald Trump is saying things, but the reality is nothing of substance is going to be delivered. Donald Trump has bigger fish in mind. He has a strategic nuclear treaty he's trying to revive with the Russians. He's trying to come up with, you know, profitable joint enterprises — joint exploitation, exploration of the Arctic. I think it was Chevron that was just basically greenlit to go back into the Russian oil business. You know, Trump said, "Yeah, we're friendly to that. That's billions of dollars." And after Chevron, other American energy giants will get back into the Russian market. This is what Donald Trump cares about; he doesn't care about Ukraine. In fact, today — or I think yesterday — he said, "What did Ukraine expect, going to war with Russia? They got their butts kicked." He recognizes that reality. It's just a political game that's being played right now because there's a tremendous amount of opposition inside the United States, in Europe, and collusion between Europe and the United States to prevent Donald Trump from having better relations with Russia. And unfortunately, these people who oppose better relations with Russia are willing to sacrifice Ukraine to achieve their outcome. And when I say sacrifice, I mean literally sacrifice Ukraine. They're destroying the genetic pool of Ukraine. Soon they'll be sending 18-year-olds to the front line. When they do that, that's it. Ukraine's finished as a nation because you'll have a bunch of women and you won't have any men left. And that's it.
Nima: You said it's a decision on the part of Ukrainians, but who's going to decide that? Is it all about Ukraine, or are you talking about Europeans and the establishment in the United States?
Scott: Well, I mean, the Europeans and the establishment [Deep State] in the United States believe they're going to be the ones making the decision, but they're not. The only party making the decision is Russia. Russia is in complete control of this narrative here. Russia is not budging. Russia offers cosmetic compromises. But Russia also understands that even the cosmetic compromises they are putting on the table, Ukraine won't accept. You know, so now Russia — look at Steve Witkoff in the White House yesterday with the assembled cabinet — saying, you know, Russia has made concessions. Russia is ready to concede. Russia is ready to work with us. Ukraine's not. But he views that as a positive because the Russians are making concessions. So, you know, at the end of the day, it's not going to be the Russians who are going to be called upon to make dramatic changes. It's going to be the Ukrainians who will be called upon to accept them — unconditional surrender. And right now, Zelensky is incapable of agreeing to this, which means this conflict will continue. Every day this goes on, it gets worse and worse and worse for the Ukrainians. There's no good news coming out of Ukraine. None.
Nima: And unfortunately, I don't know if you saw the interview with Scott Bessent talking about the frozen Russian assets. He said the Europeans can use them as leverage on Russia. Curious what you think, Scott.
#Interviewer That is Russian assets sitting in European banks right now. I know it's frozen, and the EU has said that they'll use the interest on that money to rebuild Ukraine. But shouldn't all of that money go toward rebuilding Ukraine to ensure that Putin doesn't get his hands on it anymore?
#Interviewee [Bessent] On the frozen Russian assets, I think that's all part of the negotiation with President Putin, so I don't think we should seize them immediately. You know, it is a chip on the table during this big negotiating process, and we will see whether part of that, or all of it, goes to the Ukraine rebuild.
Nima: How do you see this big negotiating table that he's talking about? Is it all about Ukraine, or do you think he's talking about something bigger than that?
Scott: Oh, no, no. If he's talking about the seizure — the potential seizure — of Russia's sovereign wealth that was illegally frozen by the West, and they've been illegally skimming off the interest, we're talking about a very small table called Ukraine. Russia's not going to play this game. I mean, it's best to understand that Putin's just not going to play that game. So whatever you think you're going to have with Russia ain't going to happen if you seize their money. Sorry, Scott [Bessent]. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. And Europe recognizes that. You just saw, I think, the head of the Belgian government say, "We're not seizing their money. We can't." Because once that happens, it begins this catastrophic chain reaction that ends with the destruction of the Western financial system. And Scott Bessent knows that. He's just playing stupid games. Again, he's one of the guys that stabs Trump in the back because this is not the kind of advice that's conducive to a positive outcome. Scott Bessent is a Russophobic guy who thinks in a Cold War mentality. He's not a problem solver. He's not trying to help solve this problem. He's like Marco Rubio, sitting there pretending to be next to Donald Trump and helping Donald Trump, while actually stabbing Trump in the back when it comes to achieving better relations between the United States and Russia. The notion that Russia's sovereign wealth can be stolen and not create insurmountable problems with Russia is just absurd in the extreme. The good news is the world knows this. The bad news is it just creates confusion where there shouldn't be confusion, because we should be talking about the big table. The big table is where we can be talking about strategic arms reduction. We can talk about joint Arctic exploration and exploitation. We can talk about the return of the energy giants to Russia. We can talk about investments, lifting of sanctions, normalization of relations — all the good things. But you're not going to get to that big table as long as the United States is holding hostage hundreds of billions of dollars of Russian sovereign wealth.
Nima: Do you think that they talk about these things, but they're just not publicly announcing it?
Scott: Well, they can't take the money. I mean, Bessent doesn't even know how he would begin to do that. It's against the law. It's against everything. And when you're talking about banks and financial institutions, this stuff sort of matters because a lot of it is based on confidence. The quickest way to lose confidence in the dollar, to lose confidence in the Western banking system, is to start seizing sovereign wealth assets. Then nobody will want to deposit their money in Western banks. And that's the end of it. And for countries like Belgium, Luxembourg, and others who have, you know, part of their economy dependent upon banking, it would be the end of them. So I just have to say, there are a couple of people — when they open their mouths, I listen, but I don't overreact. You know, Keith Kellogg — who cares? Scott Bessent — who cares? You know, Lindsey Graham — who really cares? Nobody. I mean, there’s a number of them. When they speak, you're just like, it doesn't matter, because they're so far removed from reality that their opinion no longer matters.
Nima: Scott, you've been to Russia and you've seen what's going on there, the mindset of the people there. Do you think they really care about how sensitive Russia feels about America, the United States, sending weapons to Ukraine? I want to know that because in the meeting Putin had with Donald Trump — I don't know if they talked about these things, the intelligence and the weapons that the United States is trying to provide. They may talk about NATO, but it's all about Ukraine. It's not about NATO. Scott: Look, Sergei Lavrov and other Russian diplomats have said it straight up. They know what's going on. They know the United States continues to provide weapons. They know the United States continues to provide intelligence. They understand this. It's just the reality that they're in right now. It doesn't change anything. What's going on on the battlefield isn't impacted by this. It's just a reality. But the Russians have said that there can't be a lasting peace with Ukraine so long as the United States provides intelligence, weapons, etcetera — that in order to get the peace that Donald Trump claims he wants, the United States will have to stop doing all the things they're doing now. But Russia has been dealing with this for over three years now, and they're winning. So from the Russian perspective, they'll just deal with it a little bit longer. That's the Russian government — they're very pragmatic. I'll tell you, the Russian people are furious because our weapons are killing Russian soldiers. Every day, there's a mom, a wife, a daughter, a sister who's lost a loved one, and they're being killed by American-provided weaponry. The Russians have a hard time squaring the notion that the United States is trying to pursue peace while at the same time providing Ukraine with the resources that enable them to kill Russian soldiers. That doesn't mean Russia is going to quit. It just means there's a lot of bitterness now in the hearts of the Russians. And they don't necessarily buy into the notion that Donald Trump is a good guy. Look, the Russians want peace — they've made that point over and over again — but they also said it's peace through victory, meaning that you can't have peace without victory. Victory comes first, then peace. And that's the mindset of the Russian people right now. They want this war to come to an end, but they're not willing to make the concessions that would deny them the victory that's been earned by the blood of the Russian soldiers who've been killed by American weapons.
Nima: Lavrov said that he didn't talk about the meeting between Lavrov, Putin, and Zelensky during the talks. And when you look at the United States and the Trump administration, somehow Donald Trump came out saying, "So we're done with the talks with Vladimir Putin. Next time, we're going to have Zelensky talking to Vladimir Putin. They may invite me. If they want me to be there, I would be there." So they didn't talk about how you can offer that after that meeting.
Scott: Well, let's put it this way. Donald Trump came into that meeting with a certain list of expectations. They didn't talk about any of those. They talked about the ones Russia wanted to talk about. But that list still exists. That list still influences Trump's policy options. So it's the equivalent of me saying, "Okay, Nima, we're going to meet. And when we meet, we're going to be talking about things. You're going to be meeting with [Douglas] Macgregor. You're going to meet with him face to face. You and Macgregor are going to meet — that's going to happen. And we're going to do this, that, and the other thing." And then you and I get together and I don't mention Macgregor at all. You don't mention Macgregor. We don't mention anything. When the meeting's done, I kind of go, "Yeah, I had a good meeting with Nima, and, you know, I think next time he's going to be meeting with Macgregor, and we're going to..." You know, that's because it was on my piece of paper, it was on my agenda. I didn't talk about it — it's still on my agenda, I'm still going to talk about it. But you're going to sit there and go, "We didn't talk about Macgregor. That didn't come out of my lips." That's what's happening here. You know, Trump wants a meeting with Zelensky, wants Putin to meet with Zelensky. The Russians are like, "No. I mean, I guess we could say in theory, but we can't have an agreement with him. He's not a legitimate president." You know, and that really just gets under the skin of Trump. You saw that the other day in that thing — bullshit. They're going to accept it no matter — excuse my language. But, you know, the president said it. Why can't I? But yeah, he just lives in a fantasy world. This is where he really needs high-quality people around him. You know, I'm not saying that I have all the solutions, but I am working with a group of people that we call the Poughkeepsie Peace Initiative, and we're putting together what we call a civilian engagement team. We're offering our services to the president because we're saying, "You're getting the world's worst advice about Russia. Please give us an audience. At least listen to us. Bring in your team — your team A — and we'll bring in team B. And we'll call it the Super Bowl of ideas." And I can bet you at the end of the day, Team B trounces Team A because your Team A has no clue what they're doing. And you're the president who claims he wants peace. I mean, this is how bad it gets. He's just getting horrible advice — horrible advice from people, people who have an agenda that isn't the president's agenda. And I wish he could see this. You know, he was blind to John Bolton and Mike Pompeo when they sabotaged his efforts to bring about the denuclearization of North Korea. And today, I think he's blind about, you know, Marco Rubio. He's blind about Scott Bessent. He's blind about Keith Kellogg. These people don't want peace with Russia. It's the last thing they want. They're going to sit there and say all the nice things, but then they're going to turn around and push these fundamentally flawed narratives — these fact-free narratives. The president deserves better, especially if we, the people, want him to succeed. So we'll see. I don't know if we'll get an audience. I don't know what's going to happen, but I can damn sure tell you we're going to try, because as you yourself have pointed out, the inconsistencies of the president's policy approach are manifest. It'll drive you insane trying to figure it out. What I see in the United States is that these people have somehow managed to buy time for their agenda — for the establishment agenda in Ukraine.
Nima:
They did that before during Russiagate. But they have somehow managed to come out with some sort of — it's not that strong in the media — but they have managed Donald Trump so far in the way that they want him to be. And it's not just — go ahead.
Scott: Yeah, no, I agree with you. And they did it that first term — Russiagate tied his hands like you wouldn't believe. Guess what? Russiagate's over. Not only is it over, it's becoming a criminal offense. People are being arrested. People will be arrested. People are being charged. The people that embraced that narrative are out of power and soon to be out of society. I don't know if I fully endorse this. I'm not a fan of politicized witch hunts. But the point is, the Russophobes have been neutralized too. There was no conflict the first term; there's a conflict now. What are you buying time for, if you're Europeans? For Ukraine to get their asses kicked? Okay, Russia's ready to play that game. As I told you, the casualties are unsustainable [for Ukraine] — 90,000 a month, soon to go up to 100,000 a month for Ukraine. You can't sustain that. So what are you buying time for? It's not as though there's a rainbow and you're going to hit a pot of gold here. It's a disaster — it's just a bridge collapsed off a cliff and you're going down into hell. That's the ride they're on. So all they're doing is killing more Ukrainians, and they don't care about that. But they're also bankrupting Europe. I mean, come on, Nima, you're smarter than I am — I know it. That's why I come on your show, because I learn a hell of a lot more from your questions than anybody learns from my answers. You know what's going on in Germany right now. You know the state of their economy. You know the French government's about to collapse — literally. I mean, it may not last the month, and the month's almost over. And you know, when the French government collapses — Europe's already said the next government will, you know, when Macron goes — he may go — they said it will be the Putinists. The Putinists will be in — Marine Le Pen and all that. Well, that's the end of France. And guess what else is going to happen? AfD is the most popular political party in Germany today. And I think the lady who runs it came out and said, yeah, when we win, we're out of the EU. We're done. Finished. Goodbye. Sayonara. That's the end of Europe. If France and Germany drop out of the EU, Europe doesn't exist anymore — unified Europe, it's finished, it's gone. And then you'll see a fracturing like you've never seen before. So what are you buying time for? People have to understand: the more time you buy, the more you sustain this absolutely insane, failed process that's captured Europe since the beginning of 2022, the more you guarantee an outcome which is very good for Russia and very bad for Europe. And it's not good for the United States. I mean, we need stability. I'm an American who doesn't believe in the European Union — I really don't. I think it was a failed experiment from the get-go. But I'm also an American who says it's in our best interests. You know that I'm sympathetic to the Russian point of view. I believe history is on the right side of Russia. And I ask the Russians this all the time: is it in your interests to see Europe collapse? Is it in your interest to see NATO fail? And the Russians are like, no, we sort of like stability. We don't want Europe to go away. We don't want NATO to go away. We just want them to leave us alone, maybe learn to live in peace and harmony. The last thing Russia wants is chaos in Europe. That's not good for Russia. Chaos is bad. And yet, the people who are opposing a Russian victory and dragging out this war in Ukraine by playing the delay game with Donald Trump are just guaranteeing a really, really bad outcome for Europe. A really bad outcome. The end of the EU, the end of NATO. And this is the scary part, because we don't know what's going to happen, but we have some hints. The whole idea of the European Union was to make sure that there were no more large-scale ground wars in Europe anymore. Well, they failed. We've got one going on in Ukraine right now. But you do know that within the NATO alliance — Mark Rutte says it's the strongest alliance, it's never been stronger. I mean, my God, it is so strong. I'm so impressed. We can bench press more than the mayoral candidate of New York City. But that's not saying much, since he can only bench press 135 pounds, assisted. So anyway, let's take that out of the way. The point is, within NATO right now, in the center of Europe, you have too many NATOs showing up. You've got one mini-NATO that is — I think it's Kosovo, Croatia, and Albania. I think Croatia and Albania have that NATO membership thing going for them. Kosovo doesn't — it's not a NATO state. So they've created a military alliance, a security framework that's outside of NATO, with two NATO members. In opposition to them, we get Hungary, Slovakia, and Serbia — not a NATO member — and they've created an alternative, an opposing military bloc. So when Europe falls apart, and it will, we're going to see wars in Europe. We're going to see wars that are going to be horrific, wars that are going to rival what's going on in Ukraine in terms of death and destruction. Europe is condemning itself to another hundred years of conflict. And the conflict won't be limited to these marginal states. We've got Poland right now making some harsh rhetoric against the Banderists. And, you know, if you listen to Naryshkin, the head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, one of Russia's objectives might be to rid itself of the Banderist cancer by somehow having Western Ukraine fall under Polish control. There will be a purging like you haven't seen. There will be retribution. It will be ugly. But if Poland regains its eastern territories, what are the Germans going to say about Silesia and Pomerania and East Prussia, which they had to give to Poland to compensate for the land that was taken by the Soviet Union? You think the Germans are going to sit there idly and go, yeah, that's all right? No. So now we're looking at, what, a German-Polish war? Who's going to side with the Poles? The Balts? Who's going to side with the Germans? I don't know. Maybe France. Maybe not. Maybe France won't. So now you've got a war involving France and Germany, although I find that unlikely, but it could happen. The British — they're everywhere causing trouble. They've signed an agreement with Poland. They've extended their nuclear umbrella to Poland. So now, if the Germans and the Poles start to get into a fight over Silesia, Pomerania, and East Prussia, where is the UK going to come in? And if the UK jumps in, France has sort of extended theirs too. So now Germany is going to try and say, well, we need nukes — either to develop them themselves or, hey, Russia, we'd like to talk a little bit. This thing, what we conceive Europe as being, won't be anymore. It's over unless they stop this insanity right now. Stop it right now. I'm not saying the EU deserves to exist. What I'm saying is, for the betterment of mankind, Europe doesn't need to slip into chaos and anarchy. It's already got so many problems — the immigration problem. I mean, if Germany was invaded today, only 16% of the male population said they'd be willing to give their lives in defense of Germany. That's if Germany was invaded — 16%. What happens if Germany follows through on its promise to go to Ukraine? What percentage of German men are going to say, "Yeah, we're going to go die in Ukraine"? None. Nobody in Europe wants to die in Ukraine. And yet NATO and Europe are crucifying themselves on that cross. Anyway, the Russians don't want that. The Russians don't want that kind of instability. Russia likes predictability. Russia likes to know what's going to happen. It's easier to formulate policy that way. It's easier to allocate resources if you have a good idea of what the future is going to be. So the idea that Russia is gloating over the collapse of Europe and the collapse of NATO is just an absurd notion. Russia prefers stability. Russia prefers predictability. And right now we have nothing but instability — unpredictability, unpredictability. My English is horrible. I apologize.
— — — — —
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
