Tuesday, December 28, 2021

Tucker Carlson Tonight 12/27/2021

(with Sean Duffy filling in for Tucker Carlson)

Marines Fired As China Ramps Up Its War Machine

Our Military Continues To Fire Marines While China Cranks Out More Warships

Thursday, December 23, 2021

Washington Prepares To Fail In Ukraine

This chapter will not end well for President Biden or Washington’s political class

Guards patrol the border between Russia and Ukraine. (E.Kryzhanivskyi/Shutterstock)

DECEMBER 23, 2021|12:01 AM

It’s an indisputable fact: Washington leads the world in self-delusion.

Washington’s political class is poised to march into a hurricane of its own making in Ukraine, a perfect storm of foreign- and defense-policy blunders likely to plunge the American people into future crises and conflicts. Having refused to acknowledge Russia’s vital strategic interest in Ukraine, Washington now wants to subject Ukraine and the NATO alliance to a dangerous and unnecessary test by confronting Russian conventional military power. In turn, Washington and its allies now face a test—one that they could have avoided but are now likely to fail. First, the facts.

The Biden administration is spending $768.2 billion for national defense. Russia spends only $42.1 billion, less than the $48 billion spent by the Republic of Korea. Yet Russian ground forces are superior in capability and striking power to the U.S. Army and Marines, even if both countries’ ground forces were able to deploy to Ukraine.

Russia’s conventional-ground-force superiority stems, in part, from the strategic advantage of fighting close to Russia. Its potency is also a reflection of President Vladimir Putin’s insistence on fundamental defense reform and reorganization. The reform process involved years of struggle to expel old generals who resisted change and install new, resolute fighting forces, composed of young, single men with a profound sense of Russian patriotism and toughness. The policy has resulted in an operationally flexible grouping of smaller capability-based Russian fighting formations, designed to ruthlessly exploit the striking power of Russia’s rocket artillery, tactical ballistic missiles, and loitering munitions.

Far to the west and behind the Polish border sits an awkward collection of U.S. Army and NATO Ground Forces that, despite decades of cooperation, are still challenged to fight effectively as one force. In the last 20 years of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, most of America’s allies seldom had anything to contribute to our efforts, save a flag and inexperienced troops who were forced to operate under political restrictions. Thus, like the U.S. Army that leads them, the allied ground forces cling to the illusion that NATO can fight future conflicts on land the way Anglo-American allies did during World War II—with large, densely packed divisions, corps, and armies. These are lucrative targets for Russian strike formations.

Additionally, institutional policies to impose diversity and inclusion on the U.S. Armed Forces at the expense of demonstrated character, competence, and intelligence, demoralize our troops. As a result, the dedication, cohesion, and pride of achievement required to sustain America’s professional fighting force have been seriously damaged.

The implications are clear: A U.S.-Russian confrontation in Eastern Ukraine could easily resemble the 1940 Anglo-French experience, with the Wehrmacht provoking a serious backlash at home. Supply-chain bottlenecks, consumer-goods inflation, and soaring energy costs could all worsen if events in Ukraine spiral out of control. As more and more Americans wake up to falling standards of living, how will they react to yet another war for suspicious aims that have absolutely nothing to do with their own vital strategic interests, and make their daily lives even harder?

Reality is sitting on Ukraine’s eastern border, not in the South China Sea or in the strait of Taiwan, and there is ostensibly nothing Washington can do about it. The questions that should concern Washington’s political class are: Will NATO survive its ignominious retreat in the face of superior Russian military power? And, why is Washington conducting policy not from strength, but from weakness—a weakness thus far disguised by the outward show of military power against weak opponents without armies, air defenses, or air forces?

Nietzsche said, “War makes the victor stupid.” After 1991, America’s senior military and political leaders found many reasons to spend enormous sums on defense, but no reason to change the way U.S. forces fight, or to devise a national military strategy tied to tangible, concrete interests and the preservation of American national power.

As John Kenneth Galbraith warned, “People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason. But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others, are a solemn, basic, God-given right.”

Washington’s corrupt and morally bankrupt leaders are walking into a minefield. If they embroil U.S. and allied forces in Ukraine, extraordinary discontent at home and abroad awaits them. However, like so many privileged classes before them, the Biden administration may prefer “complete destruction” rather than acknowledge that its most cherished beliefs are utter delusions. It’s safe to say that whatever happens in Ukraine, this chapter will not end well for President Biden or Washington’s political class.

Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.) is a senior fellow with The American Conservative, the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, a decorated combat veteran, and the author of five books.

Friday, December 17, 2021

The Joe Piscopo Show 12-15-2021

Joseph diGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia 

Topic: House votes to hold Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress, Ethics committee says Cuomo must pay back $5.1 million from book deal

Col. Douglas Macgregor, retired U.S. Army Colonel, the former senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense, author, and a senior fellow at The American Conservative

Topic: "The Ghost of Ukraine's Future"

James Gonzalez, President & CEO of Broadway House

Topic: Broadway House


Thursday, December 16, 2021

Black Market Leadership® Podcast Part 2 of 2

Info on Part 1 posted last week (12/8/2021):
Black Market Leadership® Podcast Part 1 of 2
Ep. 37 - Margin of Victory, Part 1 of 2
part 1 of podcast (audio):
part 1 video
Backup video link:

Monday, December 13, 2021

The Ghost of Ukraine’s Future

Vladimir Putin would probably prefer to find an alternative way to derail a U.S. alliance with Ukraine if Biden is prepared to bargain. But if Washington refuses to recognize that Russian redline, he may well be prepared to fight—and there is not much the United States could do to stop him.

by Douglas Macgregor George Beebe

What happens if Washington attempts to force Russia into concessions over Ukraine through a Reaganesque display of strength, when in fact the United States has a comparatively weak hand to play? That is the unenviable situation that President Joe Biden finds himself in after his video meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin this week and his tough talk about not recognizing any Russian redlines.

The notion that the United States is at a disadvantage in contending with Russia strikes most Americans as far-fetched. After all, America’s gross national product is many times larger than that of Russia, and we dominate the international financial system. Our military is larger and much more capable, our offensive cyber capabilities are unparalleled, and we enjoy the support of a large array of treaty allies and military partners in Europe and around the world. By contrast, Russia has few friends and allies, a middling economy largely dependent on energy exports, and a declining population hit hard by Covid-19. On paper, the United States appears to hold many cards in this high-stakes game. 

But in practice, the ability to bring force to bear in specific circumstances matters far more than aggregate measures of national power. When it comes to Ukraine, Russia is better able to move large numbers of combat-ready forces into battle, more familiar with the local terrain, and far more prepared to go to war than is the United States, for which Ukraine is not a matter of existential importance. Russia’s military has a recent track record of success in Syria, not to mention in Ukraine itself. And Moscow has very likely planned for the possibility of draconian U.S. and European sanctions and other punitive measures that Washington might impose in response. If push comes to shove in Ukraine, Russia is very likely to win—and quickly. 

Should Moscow opt to invade, a Russian campaign would probably be aimed at effectively turning territory in southeastern Ukraine into an extension of Russia itself. As many as 200,000 Russian ground forces could be arrayed in an arc from north to south along a 600-mile front. Publicly available satellite photos show that the largest concentration of Russian military forces currently lies between Voronezh and Crimea. Forces north and northwest of Kiev may constitute a supporting attack with the goal of preventing Ukrainian forces in and around Kiev from moving south to reinforce Ukrainian defenses from Voronezh to Luhansk and Donetsk. Since the battle would take place on Russia’s geographical doorstep, leaders on both sides would be intimately familiar with the terrain they must fight over.

The Russian maneuver units consist of approximately 100 battalion tactical groups (BTGs): reinforced armored and armored infantry battalions of roughly 750 to 1,000 soldiers including artillery, engineers, and support elements. The vast majority of this force is positioned in southern Russia, capable of striking west across the border with Ukraine along multiple axes with operational objectives south of Kiev along the Dnieper River. Roughly twelve BTGs are positioned to move west along the Black Sea coast toward Odessa, the seizing of which would transform Ukraine into a landlocked state.

The ground maneuver force would operate within the framework of tightly organized intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance (ISR) elements linked to powerful strike formations. There might be as many as 100 batteries of rocket artillery in the assembled force. These include systems like the BM-30 Smerch, a system often referred to as a high-end conventional weapon of mass destruction (WMD). A single salvo of five BM-30 Smerch’s firing 300mm rockets can destroy an area the size of New York City’s Central Park with the explosive power equal to a one-kiloton nuclear warhead. In addition, the Iskander mobile missile system, M a precision-guided tactical ballistic missile, would attack Ukrainian airfields, operational headquarters, and logistical infrastructure with explosive 1,058-pound conventional warheads carrying HE fragmentation, submunition, penetration, and fuel-air explosive at ranges between 180 and 300 miles.

Meanwhile, at every level—tactical, operational, and strategic—integrated air defenses composed of S-400 and S-500 Russian air and missile defense systems would protect Russian strike and maneuver formations from Ukrainian air and missile attack. Any Ukrainian or NATO manned or unmanned, low-flying, subsonic platform, whether it were a conventional rotorcraft, a tilt-rotor, or a fixed-wing prop/turboprop aircraft, would be highly susceptible to detection, engagement, and destruction.

If Russian forces attack, the skies over Ukrainian forces would be crowded with a mix of Russian surveillance drones, manned aircraft, and, potentially, Russia’s new loitering munitions. These are effectively cruise missiles designed to hover over the battlefield for hours and engage beyond line-of-sight ground targets. These attacks would be rapidly followed by precision-guided rocket artillery fire.

Under these circumstances, it is not unreasonable to assume that Russian ground forces would reach their operational objectives along the Dnieper River in as little as seventy-two to ninety-six hours. Whether Moscow would decide to press further west and seize the port of Odessa is hard to know, but the action would place Russian forces in close proximity to the pro-Russian Moldovan separatist republic of Transnistria on Romania’s border, rendering Odessa a tempting target.

Kiev’s ability to contend with such a campaign is highly questionable. It is vastly outmanned and outgunned by the Russian military. Its goal would be to retain as much territory east of the Dnieper River as possible while delaying the Russian advance, in the hope that Russian momentum would slow and buy time for immense international pressure on Moscow to halt its offensive.

The Biden administration is reportedly not considering direct military intervention in the event of an invasion of Ukraine. And with good reason—it could do little on the battlefield to counter such moves. The United States has only three combat brigades in Europe, and two of these are lightly armed with antiquated equipment. Although we could realistically employ advanced combat aircraft in Ukraine, they would have to contend with advanced Russian air defenses and formidable Russian electronic jamming capabilities. U.S. air superiority, which has been central to our military operations against lesser powers since the end of the Cold War, would not be assured in Ukraine.

Knowing this, Washington is threatening to impose harsh consequences on Russia outside the battlefield, using “sanctions from hell” and other unspecified measures, in the hope that this will stay Putin’s hand. Unfortunately, it is very likely that the Russians have long anticipated what the United States may do. Along with China, they have prepared for the possibility of being kicked out of the international SWIFT system. They have alternatives to the newly built Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, should Europeans decline to allow its use, and they may even be prepared to choke off their supplies of gas to Europe in mid-winter in retaliation. To deter possible U.S. action against their satellite systems, they have signaled their willingness to take out U.S. satellites by conducting a successful anti-satellite missile test just two weeks ago despite vehement U.S. protests, and they have built land-based backup systems should their own communications and navigation satellites cease operations. 

The good news is that Putin almost certainly understands that an invasion of Ukraine would lead to a complete break in relations with the West, rendering Russia in effect a dependent junior partner of China. Moreover, he probably realizes that Russian forces would very likely have to deal with guerrilla resistance in occupied Ukrainian territory, and that unoccupied portions of western Ukraine could become a host for U.S. and NATO forces over the longer term. It is doubtful that these are outcomes he finds appealing. He would probably prefer to find an alternative way to derail a U.S. alliance with Ukraine if Biden is prepared to bargain. But if Washington refuses to recognize that Russian redline, he may well be prepared to fight—and there is not much the United States could do to stop him.

Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.) is a decorated combat veteran, the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, and the author of five books.

George Beebe is Vice President and Director of Studies at the Center for the National Interest. He is a former director of Russia Analysis at the CIA, a former staff adviser to Vice President Cheney, and author of The Russia Trap: How America’s Shadow War with Russia Could Spiral into Catastrophe.

Saturday, December 11, 2021

US military man’s take on Berlin’s new foreign minister

‘Baerbock is a crusader looking for a reason to crusade – and that’s a problem’


DECEMBER 11, 2021

Annalena Baerbock of the Green Party is Germany's incoming foreign minister. Photo: Wikipedia

Incoming German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has tapped Green Party co-leader Annalena Baerbock as foreign minister.

Baerbock, a 40-year-old diplomatic novice, has consistently espoused liberal interventionist views that one left-wing American news site has described as a combination of “aloof complacency, ignorance and aggressiveness.”

To help understand the implications of this appointment, Douglas Macgregor (left), a retired US Army colonel and an expert on US-German relations, was asked about what he thought of the incoming German foreign minister.

Macgregor, a fluent German speaker who holds a doctorate from the University of Virginia, was former president Donald Trump’s choice to become US ambassador to Germany. Ultimately, he served as senior adviser to acting secretary of defense Christopher Miller in the last months of that administration.

During his military career, Macgregor was awarded a Bronze Star with a V device for valor as a tank commander in the first Gulf War

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

James Carden: Does the incoming German foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, represent a kind of break with the more traditional, more cautious German foreign policy we saw under outgoing chancellor Angela Merkel and her predecessors?

Douglas Macgregor: Very much so. I think at least insofar as the things Baerbock has said, she’s likely to be a profound break from the past. It might be useful to go back a little bit to talk about Merkel, because Merkel represented a certain amount of continuity. And I would argue that the Germans are not alone in this.

All the Germanic countries [in Europe] are very similar in the sense that the populations are conservative. They like continuity, stability and order. Austrians, Germans, Swiss, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians … everyone largely falls into the same category. “What do we want? Well, we want stability. We want prosperity. We want order.”

And Merkel, even though I didn’t necessarily sign on for all of her thinking, represented all that, much like her predecessors.

And this has been true in the history of the German-speaking peoples and in the Germanic countries for centuries. This is nothing new. So what is new about Baerbock?

First of all, she is unusually young. She has a different kind of background in education. She spent a year as an exchange student in Florida, much as I spent a year as an exchange student in Germany.

She was born into a Germany that wasn’t quite united yet, but a Germany that was extraordinarily prosperous; in 1980, West Germany had a very high standard of living. So she grows up in this environment without strife, without struggle, without conflict, without poverty, without any of the things that her predecessors knew.

In other words, there’s no history of experience with the things that Germany went through during and after World War II. And as a result, she sees the world very differently. She is more American in her outlook, quite willing to moralize.

JC: She seems like she would fit right in with “humanitarian” war hawks like Samantha Power, Susan Rice and, above all, former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, to whom Baerbock has compared herself. To me she sounds alarmingly like the liberal interventionists in the United States who, along with their neoconservative allies, dominate the US foreign-policy establishment.

DM: She’s a crusader of the type you see in Washington, DC, all the time. But this is a big break from the past for the German Foreign Office. Even after World War II and into the ’70s and ’80s, we had people whose families were involved in foreign affairs in Germany as diplomats during the interwar period, and even before World War I.

In the old foreign offices of Germany, people spent a great deal of time trying to understand the interests that shaped behavior in the international environment. In other words: What are Russia’s interests? What are the interests in Prague? What are the interests in Paris or in London? That’s a very different approach to foreign affairs than we’ve heard from Baerbock.

She seems to have no sense of the interests that drive things around the world in all of these major capitals. No sense of that at all. [Her perspective seems to be,] “Our interest is in making the world a better place.” [For Baerbock and similar-minded politicians,] everything is about reshaping the world to conform to some sort of ideologically pure and good and morally upright picture that always fails in the end, frankly.

Baerbock is a crusader looking for a reason to crusade. And that’s a problem.

JC: And it becomes an even more dangerous problem given the current tensions now involving Russia and Ukraine. What is concerning is that Merkel’s caution may now give way to a kind of Atlanticist recklessness embodied by Baerbock. So I’m wondering, as you are a career military officer who has actually been under fire, why do we seem so close to a war between Russia and the West?

DM: Well, a couple of quick points. First of all, Baerbock, along with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the other so-called luminaries that we currently have running the State Department, [is] now dealing with Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister.

I’ve met him. I had the good fortune to spend almost an hour with him and listening to him. He’s one of the most exceptionally talented and intelligent men I’ve ever met. And he is very much in the traditional mold of great European statesmen.

This is someone who understands [Russia’s and other countries’] interests, and he is infinitely more gifted in pursuing those [interests] than anyone … [the US has].

And … [in Russia, President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov] are at a loss to understand … [the US] because we don’t seem to be interested in our own interests. We tend to embrace other … [countries’] interests and then force them down the throats of the Russians and others. They [Putin and Lavrov] really don’t understand us.

But what’s worse is that we’re busy pursuing the same sort of illusory policies inside the military that Baerbock and others want to pursue internationally.

And the Russians know this, so they are now telling Washington and Brussels, “Look, we’ve gone about as far as we can go with you and we’ve made it very clear what we will not tolerate on our borders. We will not tolerate it if Ukraine becomes a platform for the projection of armed hostility toward Russia. And otherwise, we’re not interested in having someone on our borders who is committed to subverting our government and our social order.”

… [The Russians are] telling us that unless … [the US is] willing to sit down and come to arrangements that recognize the limits of our interests and theirs, which essentially means no more expansion of NATO, then they are going to take military action.

This article was produced by Globetrotter, which provided it to Asia Times, in partnership with the American Committee for US-Russia Accord.


Friday, December 10, 2021

US going to war with Russia over Ukraine would 'court destruction of the known world': Macgregor

We should 'celebrate' that Russia is no longer the U.S.S.R., colonel says.


Col. Douglas Macgregor, a retired Army officer and tank commander during the Gulf War, told Fox News on Tuesday that President Biden and the neoconservatives in both the Democratic and Republican parties are courting global turmoil with their current overtures toward Russia and its leader, President Vladimir Putin.

Macgregor told "Tucker Carlson Tonight" that Washington's political class has become the "land of the stupids" – noting that by leaving open the potential of taking action, should Putin invade Ukraine, Kiev and its presumed U.S. reinforcements would likely be defeated.

He noted that Biden, the Democrats, and some Republicans in Congress including Sens. Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Joni Ernst of Iowa, are making remarks about Russia 80 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

MOSCOW, RUSSIA - DECEMBER, 28 (RUSSIA OUT) Russian President Vladimir Putin (Photo by Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images)

MOSCOW, RUSSIA - DECEMBER, 28 (RUSSIA OUT) Russian President Vladimir Putin (Photo by Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images)

The 1941 attack on the Hawaiian military base "dragged us into a two-front war for which we were completely unprepared," he said on "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

"Listening to the comments by Wicker and others, it strikes me that Joe Biden has lots of friends on the Hill, all of which are living with him in the early '90s. They seem to think that Russia is prostrate -- that Russia has no alternative but to submit to whatever we tell it to do, which is ridiculous."

The retired officer added that if any potential conflict turned nuclear to "rescue [a U.S.] conventional failure, then we are courting the destruction of the known world."

Macgregor went through several possible outcomes, including the conflict reaching across the Black Sea to Turkey, which would further complicate matters, as well as a regional "bloody war" that would likely spark a refugee crisis into Eastern Europe.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, left, shakes hands with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III during their meeting in Kiev, Ukraine, Tuesday, Oct. 19, 2021. (Ukrainian Presidential Press Office via AP)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, left, shakes hands with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III during their meeting in Kiev, Ukraine, Tuesday, Oct. 19, 2021. (Ukrainian Presidential Press Office via AP)

Host Tucker Carlson added that Ernst's recent remarks about potentially telling Putin the U.S. won't allow further construction of the NordStream II pipeline – which stagnated during the Trump years and was assented to later by Biden – would not hurt Russia but instead stymie Germany and Luxembourg during the coldest months of the year.

"We have one interest, Tucker: To prevent a war from breaking out between Ukraine and Russia," Macgregor later continued, adding that neocons appear to be on a "revenge mission" against a country they essentially still view as the enemy U.S.S.R., which dissolved on Christmas Day 1991 when the Soviet flag last was lowered from the Kremlin.

He said Russia is now essentially reverted to its pre-Soviet construction: "a Russian State that rests on the foundation of Orthodox Christianity – it's back to what it had been for 1,000 years."

"We should celebrate that, not destroy it," he said.

Wednesday, December 8, 2021

Responsible Statecraft

Are the hawks taking flight over Berlin?

The elevation of Green Party co-leaders Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck to key ministries should trouble restrainers.

Two months after the German federal elections of September 26th, a governing coalition has been formed: Social Democrat Olaf Scholz will succeed Angela Merkel as Chancellor; Christian Lindner of the pro-business Free Democrats will take over the finance ministry; and Green Party co-leader Annalena Baerbock will become foreign minister.

Advocates of realism and restraint should greet this last appointment with dismay. Given Baerbock’s limited foreign policy experience and past statements, including support for arming Ukraine and for humanitarian interventions generally, she may become an obstacle to the policies of detente and strategic autonomy currently being pursued by French president Emmanuel Macron. She may also emerge as an opponent of U.S. president Joe Biden’s stated policy of “stability and predictability” with Russia.

Baerbock, a 40-year-old diplomatic novice, had been the Green Party candidate for chancellor in the German federal election. Worryingly, and in a break with recent German government policy, she has consistently espoused interventionist views that one leftist American magazine has described as a combination of “aloof complacency, ignorance and aggressiveness.”

This stands in contrast to the foreign policy of the outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel who, back in 2015, helped put the brakes on president Obama’s brief flirtation with the idea of arming Kiev. Merkel has also been an instrumental player in the four-power Normandy format which resulted in the Minsk Protocol. 

In another troubling sign, Baerbock’s Green Party co-leader Robert Habeck, who will serve as German vice chancellor as well as manage the government’s climate and economic and energy ministries, has also been an outspoken supporter of sending arms to Ukraine.

Retired U.S. Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, an expert on U.S.-German relations, tells me that in his view, Baerbock is “a crusader, the type of person you see in Washington all the time, the type that proclaims, ‘I am changing the world. I’m going to make everything new and different.’ And this would be a big break from the past for the German foreign office.”

Macgregor, who was nominated by President Trump to be ambassador to Germany, but ultimately served as senior advisor to the secretary of defense in the final months of the administration, sees a lack of strategic empathy within Baerbock’s liberal internationalism. 

According to Macgregor:

 “In the old foreign offices of Germany, people spent a great deal of time trying to understand the interests that shaped behavior in the international environment. They’d ask: What are Russia’s interests? What are the interests in Prague? What are the interests in Paris, in London? That’s a very different approach to foreign affairs that we’ve heard from Ms. Baerbock, who seems to have no sense of the interests that drive things in these major capitals. Everything is about reshaping the world to conform to some sort of ideologically pure and good and morally upright picture that always fails in the end, frankly.”

Given the high level of tension between Russia and the West, Baerbock’s moralizing approach seems ill-suited to the moment, not least because it discourages both sides from pursuing diplomacy. And not pursuing diplomacy would seem a grave mistake, given that the balance of power in the region overwhelmingly favors the Russian military. 

According to Macgregor, the Russians “are telling us that unless we are willing to sit down and come to arrangements that recognize the limits of our interests and theirs, which essentially means no more expansion of NATO beyond the current limits in the East, then they are going to take military action.”

This becomes all the more of a concern now that Germany has a new chief diplomat with seemingly little interest in diplomacy. 

Black Market Leadership® Podcast Part 1 of 2


Ep. 37 - Margin of Victory, Part 1 of 2

Black Market Leadership®

Tucker Carlson Tonight 12/7/2021

Biden and Putin Meet Virtually As Tensions Rise In Ukraine

Republican Senator Says He Wouldn't "Rule Out" Military Strike On Russia

Sunday, December 5, 2021


2021 Foreign Policy Conference

Edited for Colonel Douglas Macgregor participation clips

If you would like to watch the entire 4 hours and 48 minutes, click on the YouTube video below: