The Collapse of the Western Liberal Order| Conversation w/ Dr. Wilmer Leon!!

All right, hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. I know I'm starting a little bit early here. I figured why not? My guest was ready to go because he's excited about the conversation as much as I am too. So we are very, very, very excited to have him here. I'm going to be bringing him on, then we're not going to waste too much time because I got a lot to talk to him about. So let me bring in my guest, Dr. Wilmer Leon.

Good evening, David. How are you?

Good, sir. How are you? First of all, I want to say thank you for carving out time for me and for the community, because I know it's Friday. You're a busy man during the week with all your talks around the country, and I am very grateful to you. I want you to know this on behalf of the entire community.

Well, I'm incredibly humbled that you would invite me to this program. So it's my honor and pleasure. Thank you.

It's always my pleasure also. The reason, guys, just FYI, here's one of the reasons why the moment I found out that Dr. Leon was available to this, I got so excited. Why? It's because I want you to know there are voices of reason inside the United States. There are voices of logic inside the United States. And I want you to hear it directly from someone whom I trust, first of all, and second, not only given his background as a political scientist, someone who understands the ins and outs of how foreign policy is structured and how the world operates. So let me just, without wasting too much time, I'm going to give you guys a brief, brief intro. By the way, I put the intro into the description. So you can see it there if you can just go to the, uh, uh, description for the video. But I'm gonna just give you a brief, uh, description about Dr. Wilmer Leon. Dr. Wilmer Leon III is a political scientist. For 11 years, he was a lecturer in the political science department at Howard University and has also taught at Morgan State University. He is also the host producer of Inside the Issues. It is also a nationally broadcast radio, uh, talk show on SiriusXM Channel 126 for those who live in the United States, as well as he is also the co-host of The Critical Hours with none other than Garland Nixon, by the way, on Radio Sputnik. I've been a host on that show so many times and I enjoy always being there. So Uh, Dr. Leon is a nationally syndicated columnist with the TRICE-ITNI Newswire and a regular contributor to over 200 newspapers and websites across the country. Dr. Leon can also be seen as a regular contributor and analyst on international television news programs such as Press TV and RT TV. His latest book is Politics another perspective. Welcome, Dr. Leon.

Thank you, thank you. I greatly appreciate that.

All right, all right. You guys are in for, for, for a ride as far as understanding what's going on. Let's start with this, uh, uh, uh, Wilmer, if I may.

Sure.

I would like you to, uh, give my audience here and the whole community your perspective about the state of affairs in the United States.

I know the, the, the, the, the state of, the state of affairs in the United States at, at this point in time, uh, in the context of domestic politics is in a state of turmoil. And not only is it in a state of turmoil, but I think it is in an incredible state of decline. Um, I say turmoil because if you look within the Republican Party, for example. They are in the midst of, uh, of an incredible internal fight, internal struggle. For the last 2 days, I've been listening to, uh, as much as I could and as much as I can tolerate, listening to the CPAC conference. And what you seem to have going on right now at the CPAC conference the Conservative Political Action Committee, is the Trump wing of the party challenging the, what we'll call, the established order of the Republican Party. And what I mean by that is Donald Trump and his acolytes are attacking people like Lindsey Graham and, more importantly, what's his name from Kentucky? Mitch McConnell, Mitch McConnell, and, and that, that ilk. And the— they're not only really debating political ideology, they're not, they're not debating policy. These are becoming incredibly, uh, vehement, uh, incredibly personal attacks. And They are, you know, because, for example, Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy engaged in some negotiations with the Democrats.

Mm-hmm.

According to the MAGA Trumpian folks, negotiation is off limits. And that's not hyperbole. These are the things that they're saying. These are some of the bases of the condemnations of the, of the, of the Republican Party. And, and so when I listen to this CPAC conference, when I listen to the rhetoric coming out of the CPAC conference, um, it's, it's incredibly, incredibly dangerous. It's incredibly, incredibly concerning. On the other side of the aisle, I say that, uh, that's just as volatile as the Republicans. It's just not being articulated as clearly and as the Republicans are. And what I've seen and what I believe, I think I could, what we are seeing is a move away from the stereotype of Democrats as being focused on peace, focused on the social welfare, focused on social programs. They have moved so far to the right that the Democrats are now the ones that are championing more funding for Ukraine. The Democrats are the ones that are championing more money, uh, to back the genocide in Gaza. And so they— to, so to a great degree the Republicans and the Democrats are two wings just about on the same bird. Um, it's incredibly, incredibly concerning. So the— and, and finally, the Democrats are not listening to their constituents, because when you look at the polling data, the polling data says that an overwhelming number of Americans and an overwhelming number of Democrats want an end to the conflict in Gaza. An overwhelming number of Americans, an overwhelming number of, uh, of Democrats want an end to the conflict in Ukraine. And I could go on and on and on, but the, the policies that are being articulated by, uh, President Biden, by Kamala Harris, by some of the old guard like Nancy Pelosi They are totally out of step with their constituents and they don't seem to care.

It's okay. And we're going to, by the way, we're going to be addressing Ukraine as we move along with this. So it is just for my viewers who just joined me here. I'm having a conversation with Dr. Wilmer Leon. We're going to be addressing a host of foreign policy issues. I just want at least the audience to hear from someone domestically that they are voices of reason, as I mentioned earlier, someone who understands the ins and outs of how the American politics operates and to give us the perspective about the foreign policy that is emanating from that. So let me just move into— first of all, I want to say thank you to CJ for your Super Sticker, truly appreciate it. CJ, thank you so much, uh, and I will address your comment later on. So, uh, I want to know your input, uh, uh, Wilmer, as far as American foreign policy that we have been noticing, at least as one who worked in Washington back then. And even back then I started to notice that there is no cohesiveness in our foreign policy. Why is that? Why are we losing sight of what's need to be done, what the right thing to do?

Well, because I, I think the, the right thing to do, the, the definition of the right thing to do has shifted from a, a moral human base to an economic elite base, uh, and from the United States perspective As the United States has been involved in the deindustrialization of the country in order to provide for, to pursue greater markets, to pursue lower labor rates, all for the interest of the elite in this country, that same mindset has also been very dominant in international politics. And I say that clearly understanding that economics, you know, political economy, that economics has been driving the policy for an inordinate amount of time. I understand that. But even with that, there was at least an articulation of concern for human rights. There was an articulation of concern for the ecology. And now, unfortunately, so much of that seems to now have taken a back seat, and sheer greed is now dominating the policy. As an example, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, the intentional, uh, deindustrialization of Germany, uh, the Republic— the, the— I almost said Republicans, uh, the Democrats supporting genocide in Gaza. All of these— there was a time in the world when other countries would turn to the United States for leadership as it related to the social order. Now the United States has abdicated that, uh, that history. It has abdicated, uh, that, that mindset, and it's now just straight greed. Let's take as much as we can for as long as we can.

Well, I look at it like yesterday, the vote at the United Nations Security Council. I mean, to me as an American, and I am sure maybe you've You know, I can't speak for you, Elmer, here, but I was ashamed. I'll say it because it pained me to see how my country is behaving on the global stage by being the only country that vetoed humanitarian assistance, which to me was like, what the heck? What's going on? You can't do that. It's just because, uh, the world has lost credibility in our sort of in our ability to do the right thing. So to me, it's kind of like it's too late for that. So we can't— no.

And let me just quickly add to that because, because as, as part of that, you now have African Americans becoming the face of the articulation of those policies. Linda Thomas-Greenfield at the UN. As an African American woman backing genocide. You've got Kamala Harris as an African American woman and the Vice President of the United States going down to CARICOM, uh, trying to convince, uh, Jamaica and some of the other CARICOM countries to be the face of the United States invasion or re-invasion of Haiti. Uh, Lloyd Austin going to Kenya with— to, to, uh, to, to create and foster this, uh, joint military security arrangement, convincing Kenya to be the forces on the ground going into Haiti. So the, the, the African-American faces that are being used as the COVID of American imperialism is also incredibly disturbing.

Well, that is the problem. What I— that's why I put the title, Wenmer, The Collapse of the Western Liberal Order, because this is almost not just at the United States. You look at the so-called democracies, all of them are behaving— well, I mean, we're seeing what's going on in Europe. I have some viewers in the— some, uh, members of the community here from Europe, and they are sharing information with me as to they don't understand why their governments are behaving the way they are behaving. That defies logic. What happened to that, uh, uh, the, uh, the moral standing that at least the West was known for? We say one thing and do the opposite. That's, to me, problematic. For us, most of us Americans, uh, they just don't understand the ins and outs of how Washington operates. So, and I found it very, very, very troubling. So I want to move the conversation to two main topics. One of them has to do with China The other one has to do with Russia. So let's start with China, shall we?

Okay.

I'd like to get your input, Wilmer, as to how do you see American foreign policy towards China. What I mean by this is that on the paper we are recognizing one China policy, two systems, but in action We are doing the opposite. So why are we fomenting tensions in the Taiwan Strait to get to China?

What for? A couple of things. Uh, one is, uh, since the— I believe since the end of World War II, the United States has always felt that It needs a boogeyman. It needs the— in order to continue the perpetuation of the military-industrial complex, in order to continue directing limited American resources away from social spending to militarism, so that the Raytheons of the world, the Lockheed Martins of the world, the Boeings of the world can continue to generate incredible profit, those that represent those interests have had to convince the American people that America is always under threat. So that's, I think, an important factor in the equation. Another factor in the equation is the, uh, development and the, the very strong growth of the Chinese economy. And China was once just, uh, the manufacturing depot for, for the United States, and now China has taken the lead in terms of research and development in a number of areas. Uh, the Belt and Road Initiative has enabled China to expand its reach and its influence all over the globe. And the United States sees that economic threat in military terms. And so that's another reason why, why there's all this jingoistic and militaristic language, this anti-China language as it, uh, in, in the West. And then I think there are just some hardcore straight-up racists that, uh, have been anti-China for a very long time. In fact, there are those who will say that the, that, that China is the real fear, and the way to get to China is through Russia. And, you know, so there are a number of, of elite that, that have believed that for a very long time. So, there are a number of factors that contribute to the militarism, the violation of the One China policy, and this ongoing threat that the United States keeps engaging in as it relates to China.

But is it the problem, if I understand it correctly, is it the problem that because we cannot compete with China? Is that why we are fomenting those kind of tensions? Is because we are realizing technologically China is moving ahead? I mean, I've, I've been keeping my eyes on, on the chips industry. I'm aware that China is in the process of developing or sort of perfecting the 4-nano tech for the chips. I mean, is it the problem because we cannot compete with that?

I don't, I don't, you know, I've had this conversation with a number of, with a number of guests on, on my shows, and I don't like to use the term that we cannot compete. I, I think it is a, a, a clearer, we have, we, we chose, we didn't see the need to compete because because of, uh, these, these warped concepts such as Manifest Destiny and American internationalism and American exceptionalism. America has always seen itself as the best and the brightest, and everybody else is just everybody else. Well, China made a conscious decision. I want to say it was probably coming out of the '80s that they were no longer going to be viewed as the sick man of Asia, which is how they used to not only be referred, but in many instances, that's how they saw themselves. And so they decided that that was no longer going to be their reality. And so they, they, they, they changed their, they changed their self-perception. And in changing their self-perception, they decided that they were going to play a different role in the— in international dynamics. And so they, with a government that plans their economy, they were able to chart for themselves courses of progress because they're not a strictly capitalist country. All of the profit that was made from the things that they did, they didn't just put those profits in the hands of investors, they reinvested those profits into the development of their country. They focused on abject poverty in China, bringing over— is it a— how many millions of people?

Actually, it was about 800.

About 800 million.

That's what I read, yes.

About 800 million. They have been able to bring about 800 million people out of abject poverty, uh, over— I want to say it's about the last 15, 15 or 20 years, whereas homelessness in the United States is on the rise. So China has made a, a conscious decision to change its self-perception, to change its world dynamics. The United States, uh, has been focused on capitalism, has been focused on the rights of the individual, not really paying attention, not really being concerned about the value of the whole. And so that is why now you see the wealth disparity in the United States being what it is It's on the rise, and that is contributing greatly to the demise of the United States.

And that's probably why Washington is in sort of living in denial. Does no one accept the reality that the geopolitical landscape has shifted?

In fact, let me give you one, one, one very real simple example that everybody here that has a cell phone will, will understand. About probably 15 years ago, China reached out to the United States as China was developing 5G technology. And they reached out to the United States and they said, "We would like for this to be a collective collaborative effort. Will you work with us?" Going to their win-win strategy. That is all— that's not just a worn trope. That is a stated established policy of the Chinese government. And so they reached out to the United States and they asked the United States, will you work with us on this 5G technology? And the United States said, no, we're going to do it ourselves. China said, fine. And what did they do? They created 5G. As we move towards the internet of things and the, and the interconnectivity between, say, your cell phone and your car, and your car and your cell phone and your refrigerator, and all these other things. China moved that technology. China is now, I want to say, into 6G, and the United States is crying foul, trying to prevent China from introducing 5G technology around the world because the United States realizes not only from a consumer perspective but from a military perspective. Being able to communicate at that level puts the United States at an incredible disadvantage. So that's just one example of how the United States is digging its own grave.

Yeah, well, you're spot on, Wilmer, because I was aware of two cases, one of them in Europe, the other one is in India. The one in Europe is that some governments, including the UK and Germany, where behind closed doors we're forced not to even allow 5G in their network. India went ahead and said to China, no, we don't want 5G because we pressured India to do so.

And just a final point there is that the United States has gone around the world and has persuaded a number of companies to— countries to pull out their Huawei, to pull out their Huawei routers, their— and, and, and replace their, uh, Huawei routers with, I think, Motorola and, and some other US-based, um, uh, uh, routers, uh, to the, to the disadvantage of those com— of those countries. And Britain, for one, yeah, lost billions of dollars replacing their, their, their Huawei technology.

Well, the next thing that I'm seeing coming, Wilmer, is the EV, the electric vehicles, that China dominates the markets both in the US and the, the EU. But the US most likely is going to put that ban. You know how it is. They're gonna say, no, no, no, you cannot. It's because the cost. I read, I read the characteristics of BYD electric vehicle in comparison to that of Tesla, and when it came out to the cost $75,000 for Tesla versus $28,000. Which one you gonna pick? I mean, for us average citizen can't afford $75,000 electric car. Ain't gonna work.

Not only the cost, but the quality of the product is also better. And one of the reasons why the United States that Joe Biden is now changing the US position on EV also has to do with the labor issue. And the unions in this country are afraid of losing jobs if the United States increases the demand, increases the production of electric vehicles. That was all a big part of the fallout with the negotiation with the UAW. You know, a few months ago. So instead of the United States investing in the infrastructure to make electric vehicles not only profitable, but to make convenient, if the United States invests in the— if the United States looks towards the future, understands the future, and stops trying to control the future and were to invest in infrastructure, making electric vehicles not only profitable but convenient, that could change the whole dynamic and put the United States on a totally different trajectory. But the United States, we can look at things as simple as seat belts in vehicles. The United States fought tooth and nail to put seat belts in. There are a number of things when it comes to the auto industry that the United States auto industry had to be brought into the future kicking and screaming because they wanted to stay stuck in the past.

Interesting. Before we move into another one, I want to go back to China again. And the reason being because I had a chance to read up the summary of the Pentagon, uh, strategic, uh, uh, what did they call it, a strategic policy for Asia. Of course, it's all geared towards China. I had a chance to look at also the one in Canada. What I found very interesting, Werner, just to share this with you and with you all, is that Canada, Germany, and Japan, in addition to the US— but the US was separate— those three countries all share a common terminology as far as their strategic Asia policy. They all aimed at China. And the reason I want to bring this back, because I want to get your inputs for, for the viewers to also know something about it. Are we looking at a military confrontation between the US and China? Because apparently we're not willing to accept the reality that an ascending power It's going to replace a sitting power. And this is where it comes with the Thucydides trap theory. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Are we looking at a conflict here?

Military? I sure hope and pray that we don't, because that is a conflict that the United States cannot win, and it could result in the end of the world as we know it. I think what the United States is trying to do is it's, it's trying to flex its muscle, uh, it's trying to bluff China into, uh, acquiescence, and that's just not going to happen. Hence, the United States has just, uh, announced that it's sending 5 of its 11 aircraft carrier groups into the Pacific. And, you know, the United States hasn't won a conflict since World War II. That's true. That's— folks, for, for, for as much as the United States spends on its military, not only domestically but power projection with its, uh, however many hundred of bases around the world and all that other kind of stuff that we have You want the exact number, Wal-Mart? Please.

756.

756 bases. We haven't won a conflict—

No.

Other than Grenada and Panama, the, the, the, you know, the, the, the military, uh, giant called Panama. We have— we haven't won a military conflict since World War II.

That's correct.

And, and, and, and so the United States believes that by sending carrier groups into the South China Sea that somehow China is going to quake in its boots and, and acquiesce to and fall in line with the, the dictates and the demands of the United States. And I remember when the United States sent, I think it was the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier group into the Mediterranean Sea. President, this was just a month ago, or, you know, a month and a half ago. Yeah. President Putin said, "President Biden, why did you send that aircraft carrier into the Mediterranean Sea?" Don't you realize you're not scaring anybody? These people don't scare. And by the way, we can sink it with our, um, with our, uh, Kinzhal hypersonic missiles from here. So what, what are you doing? And I think that same thing applies to to China because they have the hypersonic missile technology there that has been, that has been tested and proven. I don't know that Iran has— if, if they've tested it, I don't know that the results of those tests have been made public, but I have read, I'm sure you have, that Iran has developed hypersonic missile technology. The United States is out gunned and doesn't even realize it. That it— the warfare now has changed to more asymmetrical than what the United States is used to. And I hope asymmetrical is the right term. It has. It's no longer we're going to put the Green Army in the green uniforms and the Blue Army in the blue uniforms and let them march across the, the turf. And, you know, no, that That's old school stuff, but that's the, that's the mentality that a lot of people in the United States believe is, is a winning strategy. And what we're— look, the Ansar Allah has changed international shipping. Ansar Allah in Yemen has been able to change the dynamic of international shipping with missiles that cost $2,000.

Yeah, it's true. It's true. It is true. And this is where I see— I mean, for me now, I mean, I'm observing what's going on in Asia. I will be going to Asia soon in a few months, and I intend to see things with my own eyes. One of the things that I am concerned about, seeing how these tensions is being ratcheted up. For example, you look at what NATO has announced about opening an office in Tokyo, and the first question that comes to mind is, what the heck, what for? You look at what the Philippines signed, the military agreement with the US, right after— here is what I found very troubling— right after Marcos Jr.'s trip to Beijing. Almost I felt like he was giving, he was giving lip service to presidency, went back to Manila, signed an agreement with the US to allow in, uh, 5 bases. Actually, the truth were about 9 bases. Only 5 were declared and 4 were not. And, and I believe, as a former military, those 4 is going to be hosting some advanced weapons that even Filipinos will never know. Then you look at Australia. It's being sucked into that trap. Then you look at New Zealand going into that direction, and of course Japan and South Korea. So all this gives me an idea that, uh, or a sign is writing on the wall that we really want to have a conflict with China one way or another.

We think we do, but, but that's a, that's a fight that, um, It's, it's, it's a bad idea logistically.

Yeah.

How, how are we going to travel 3,000 miles around the world and think that we're going to be able to support a conflict of that nature, even with the bases that we do have in the region? Those, those things have to be supported. The logistics of this would be a nightmare. Not to mention just the— in fact, I want to say that the Department of Defense, yeah, uh, has run, um, simulated war games over the last 8 or 9 months 25 times, and the United States lost every time. Wow. I want to say that again— simulated war games. That our own Pentagon has run the numbers. They've entered all the data into the computers and we lose every single time. And I mean, I'm not making that up. You folks, you can look that up for yourselves. That's a fact.

No, it is. It is. It is. I was aware of one even back then when we ran about 18 of them, 17 out of the 18 we lost.

Okay.

That was back then. So that just gives you an idea. And I think the whole thing about vis-à-vis— just will finish up with this China and move to another topic— is that the idea that you look at where China is investing its money, you know, in infrastructure. I mean, I, I drive around the country, I fly from state to state and so forth. And I'm looking at an infrastructure that is very crumbling in front of my eyes and asking myself, why is the government not taking care of this? I'm not talking about handout here. I'm talking about everybody benefits from it. We pay in the taxes. Well, we ought to see the improvements on bridges and airports and high-speed trains, and we have none of that.

You mentioned high-speed trains. I was talking to I think it was Ajamu Baraka who had gone— who, he was in China a couple of months ago, and he said to me that he was on a bullet train and the train was traveling 350 miles an hour. And he had a, um, a glass of water that he had set on the floor and the, the, the glass of the cup wasn't even shaking. That, that— and folks, 350 miles an hour the train is traveling. We have nothing, nothing. But we— but we're the exceptional, we're the exceptional entity, we're the, we're, we're the superpower, uh, No, only in our own minds.

Yeah, it is sad. It is sad. I want just to make it clear. I know there are those detractors that they saying we criticize the our country a lot, whatever. This is because we love our country. That's why we have to say what we have to say. We cannot— and I, I speak for myself— I cannot sugarcoat things because I am seeing where my country is headed. So to those who saying why you hate America, 'You do this, you're talking negative about America.' It's nonsense. I just want to put that out for the record.

I got an email yesterday from a listener to my SiriusXM show who said, 'Why is it that you all, you only have negative things to say about Joe Biden? And what you're doing is you're creating the environment for African Americans to think it's okay to vote for Donald Trump.' And my point is, is to your point, I'm just telling you the truth, so, and what you do with that information is your business. But I can't sit here and tell you— I am a political scientist, I am not a political operative. So my training, my job, my obligation is to look at the data. What does the data say? And tell you tell you the truth. What you do with it or don't do with it, that's your business.

Well, that is— here it is, folks. This is why I said I want you to be here to listen to what Dr. Leon has to say, because there is a voice of reason from within the U.S. There are people like Dr. Leon that speaks the truth.

There are a couple of us walking around.

Yeah, well, just because a lot of people think that all Americans, they don't think straight Or no, no, no, no, there are good voices out there. They—

In fact, to, to that, again, I'll go back to the point I made, uh, in, in, in the first part of the discussion about the, about the polling. When you look at the data, 70% of Americans want an end to the Ukraine conflict. 80% of Americans want an end to the Gaza conflict. It's the leader, so-called leadership in this country that is not listening to the folks. The elected representatives are not representing the interests and the dictates of their constituents because there's an elite class in this country that are paying for the policies that they're receiving. Wow. Wow.

Instead of having the politicians working for the benefit and welfare of their constituents, representing also, uh, folks. Before I forget, make sure to prepare a question or two for Dr. Leon towards the end. He was— he's willing to take a few questions, so we will do this at the end. So let's, uh, let's turn our, uh, attention to another major conflict, which is the Ukraine-Russia. And I would like to have your input as to, first of all, why the, why the conflict was created to begin with. Why? Because he was created, right?

It, it was the United States started this fight.

Why?

Because when you go back and you read, um, Zbigniew Brzezinski And let me— oh, here you go, The Grand Chessboard.

Oh, yeah, from Brzezinski, yes.

Between Two— The Grand Chessboard and— oh, this one doesn't have— Between Two Ages. He was a Russophobe. And Brzezinski, as a Russophobe, was very instrumental in helping to create the American foreign policy mindset. And so when you look at the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Margaret— what, not Margaret, the woman—

From which country?

From this country, before Hillary Clinton. I just draw the short woman Uh, yeah, yeah, Madeleine Albright is a disciple of Brzezinski. Uh, Hillary Clinton is a disciple of Madeleine Albright. So, so that's the, that's the ideological tree that a lot of these folks come from. It is said that Brzezinski is the one that discovered Barack Obama when Barack Obama was at Columbia University. So Barack Obama comes from that Brzezinski mindset. So Russia has been a perceived enemy since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And, and once Vladimir Putin took control of the Russian economy, and, and the meaning that the United States was no longer going to be able to control the Russian economy and extract the profit from from it that American business elites were anticipating and financiers were anticipating, then Russia became an even bigger threat. And so there's been this whole Russophobia mentality within the United States, and that now, you know, makes its way into Tony Blinken and and, and that whole, that whole crew. So, um, and I mean, we can go back to the Cold War. So, so the, the— so Russia is a, is a convenient enemy, you know, coming out of the Cold War and all. So there's been this distant memory that has now been brought back to the forefront that Russia is an enemy, ignoring the fact Russia wanted to join NATO.

That's correct.

Russia wanted to engage and work cooperatively with the West, but Russia was not going to be a puppet. Russia was not going to be, was not going to allow the United States to use it as it has used so many of its other allies. And that was something that the— and into the military-industrial complex, Russia becomes a very convenient enemy. Yeah. And that's a 30,000-foot answer to your question.

You're right. I mean, the most troubling to me was after the end of the Cold War, NATO expanded threefold. He moved from 50 men to 31.

And what did— and what did— what did Secretary of State, uh, uh, I'm drawing a blank— the guy from Texas, I drew a blank on his name.

Oh, uh, the, uh, Secretary of State was the, uh, James Baker.

James Baker promised Gorbachev—

that's true—

NATO will not— if, uh, Baker promised Gorbachev if Gorbachev allowed for the reunification of East and West Germany, NATO would not move any further eastward. And not only did, did, uh, Baker sign on to that, uh, France did, uh, Germany did, and, uh, one other— I think one other European country, uh, signed on to that as well. And when people want to know Why is there this conflict now? Well, the United States violating that commitment that James Baker made goes a very long way. And to those listening who will say, well, that was never a treaty, that nothing was ever signed, therefore it is irrelevant and is not, isn't, isn't tangible, isn't real. Yeah, I think it's the case— I think it's the international law case of Greenland v. Norway that, that was back in the '30s where the international court said any commitment made by a representative of a country is a binding commitment. And so James Baker promising Gorbachev, yeah, that NATO— that was as, that was as good as a con— it was a verbal contract, it was a verbal agreement, and has standing in international court.

Yeah, but of course the bad part is that, you know, the optics of it internationally when we went back on our word. That's what we're doing. So this is why, I mean, a lot of us Americans, the not understand as to what is at the heart of this conflict and who created it to begin with.

The United States.

What, we just have nothing to do? We're going to go look for conflicts around the world? Well, we've been in conflicts for years. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, you name it. And what did we— what do you and I as Americans, what have we gained from that? What was our interest?

Death.

Death. Exactly.

No, debt. Debt, death, and the decline in the American standard of living. My son will be 22 years old on Sunday. He has never known a day of peace in his entire life.

Wow, that's very sad. Now, and that's just one example. A lot of people that age will be— yeah, which is, uh, but that becomes also on us Well, we're us citizens. We are not informed. How do we expect to influence change?

Well, we— it's very difficult to influence change when, when journalism in the United States has become co-opted by the military-industrial complex. So we, we, the, you know, the, the New York Times is known as the paper of record. The invasion of Iraq was sold to the United States, to the pe— to the, to the citizens of the United States, to a great degree through the New York Times. The CIA was filtering those lies and that disinformation and that misinformation to the American people through the New York Times, through the Washington Post, through MSNBC and other, uh, network outlets. So it, it becomes difficult for the American people to formulate any kind of rational, reasonable understanding of the geopolitical landscape when all they're being fed is narrative. When you turn on MSNBC and you look at who many of their paid contributors are Yeah, they're retired generals, they're retired members of the intelligence apparatus, former directors of the CIA and all of these other organizations. They are former speechwriters from the White House. All of the people that have spent their careers creating and articulating a narrative, they've left their positions in the government They move into the private sector on the television and they do what? They do what they've been trained to do, communicate the narrative. And anybody that comes, that tries to break through with a contrary narrative, fact-based contrary narrative, is deplatformed, is ignored, is called a conspiracy theorist, which by the way, that term conspiracy theory was created by the CIA in response to those that were saying that John F. Kennedy was not murdered by, uh, a lone gunman. Um, so anyway, I'm, I'm going off on a tangent.

I'm sorry. I know what you mean. I know what you mean. So, uh, yeah, it is. I couldn't agree more. And this is again what concerns me the most about the narrative that I am really following closely, emanating from what Washington vis-à-vis China. That is what concerns me the most because I can just see where this is gonna go.

Now, the spy balloon.

The spy balloon. That's correct.

The spy balloon.

Next, now the, the AV is gonna be spying if it's on the American roads. So now let me go back to the, uh, Russia aspect.

So Oh, don't forget the Chinese cranes, because now the Chinese— they're gonna— China's gonna use the cranes at the, at the American ports to, to disrupt our economy. That's the latest. That's the latest China story.

It's pathetic. It is pathetic. So, so now for the, uh, for the Ukraine, uh, uh, Russia conflict. Um, by the way, I found out that President Biden is in Ukraine. He went to visit for Ukraine.

And he's there now.

I found out, and he met, he met with the wife of Navalny.

Okay.

Yeah, but he called her a national hero. Well, most Americans do not know the background story of Navalny, right? Oh, that's for another, another day as far as conversation. Uh, what I wanted to mention here, uh, uh, is Now you and I know, because you've been talking about it, I've been on your show so many times, we addressed this so many times, and it became evident that Ukraine has lost. Ukraine is a failed state. So yes, so why, in your opinion, why is the EU and the United States still pushing through with more money? And now they want to even send more weapons?

Because the EU, for the most part, is the lapdog of the United States. And the leaders of the EU— and an example of that, if you go back to when Olaf Scholz came to the United States, and, and he was standing in, in a press conference with Joe Biden, and a reporter asked Joe Biden about Nord Stream. When are you going to turn up Nord Stream? And Biden said, that's not going to happen. And the reporter said, with Olaf Scholz standing right next to him, uh, the reporter said, well, Mr. President, how can you stand there and say that that's not going to happen when that's not our pipeline? And he just looked at the reporter, said, trust me, that's not gonna happen. Wow. And then about a week after that Boom, Nord Stream blows up. So the United States, it's, it's almost— it, it's analogous to a mafia operation. These are, these are gangsters. These are just gangsters. And, and, um, uh, so you— there's now becoming, uh, uh, an increased amount of unrest in France, in Germany, because the people, the farmers, the workers, they're watching their countries be de-industrialized. They're watching the subsidies that their governments were providing the farmers go away as billions of dollars are being sent to Ukraine, and Ukraine grain is coming on the market and lowering the price for French farmers. And German farmers and whatnot. And so there's becoming an incredible amount of unrest in the street, you know, and they can no longer— the French can no longer just say, "Let them eat cake," because they don't have any cake to eat. As they look at the cost of their natural gas, they're in the dead of winter, they're paying what, 3 and 4 times more to heat their homes. In Britain, in London, in Britain, in Germany, in France, the— and the folk, and they're watching their standard of living decline as austerity measures are being imposed on these citizens at the behest of the United States. And people are saying, why? Why?

Indeed, indeed, because that's a lot. I have family lives in Europe, so I kind of talk to them once in a while, and they're kind of like baffled by the, the, uh, the policies in both. I have two— the family lives in Germany and France. I talk with them, it's kind of like, we don't get it, we don't get it.

Well, and one of— and one of the obj— and, and one of the objectives of the Ukrainian conflict Yeah, was the deindustrialization of Germany.

Germany, that's true.

And now some of these German companies are moving to the United States. For example, who would have thought that, that Michelin, the French tire company Michelin, that, that has, I think, 2 factories in Germany, they've closed those tire factories, and I think they're looking to move those factories to the United States. United States. Wow. That's— and I think Porsche is looking to move the, the, the assembly of more Porsches to the United States.

Wow. Wow. That's, that's troubling for Europe, you know. Uh, when I was in Poland last time, a few, a few months ago, uh, it was— I had some conversation with some Polish people there, and they did made it clear to me that they don't understand what the policies governments. Well, of course I had to dig into some stuff only to find out who the US ambassador to Poland— you know who is, right?

The ambassador to Poland?

No, of the United States to Poland. Poland is the son of Brzezinski.

Oh, I, I did not—

okay, it's his son.

His son, Mika Brzezinski's brother.

Brother, yes. He is US ambassador too. And that I put the two and two together and figured now it makes sense to me as to why Poland is embarking on this. The people do not want any issues with Russia, but the government is pushing the policy because US Ambassador, following the footsteps of his father— you're right, you're right, that's exactly— now they got, uh, they got a little bit, uh, well, maybe it's too late for all this, so So now the idea of how it's gonna end, how is, in your opinion, this conflict?

Uh, well, you know, I, I wish I were able to empirically answer your question. Uh, now you're, you're asking me my opinion, and, um, the only thing that I can see is that the United States is in this until the last Ukrainian dies. And I, I— because, because Russia is not going to stop. Uh, Russia has no reason to stop. The United States is doing everything it can, it can do to continue to see to it that this conflict continues. And the folks that I've talked to about this that understand Russian strategy and Russian capabilities will say Russia hasn't even started. That if that, that looking at the size of Russia's military and their ability to bring up forces and, and, and, you know, the— this is the very kind of war that Russia has been preparing for for 20 years. A, an artillery battle. Um, this is, this is what they have been planning for and stockpiling and stockpiling and stockpiling. And that's why NATO is running out of ammunition. Russia just keeps sending shells. So, um, I think at the end of the day, if there is a Ukraine left It's going to be, um, I don't know, about the size of London, because, because Russia is not going to relinquish any territory that is, that is taken. And why, and why should it? The United States has forced its hand. It didn't want to do— and for when I say it didn't want to do this, and folks say, Wilmer, what do you mean? Well, look at the Maidan coup in 2014. And look at how long it took. It took, I think, 8 years.

Yeah.

For Russia to get involved. Because as the, as the ethnic Russians in the Donbas kept begging Putin, will you please step in and stop this, Putin kept saying, no, no, this is not my— I don't—

this—

now, and then finally, finally, when he understood that he really was left with very little option. He went in, and once he went in, yeah, I'm not, I'm not leaving until I accomplish what I set out to accomplish— denazify, demilitarize, and you are not going to become part of NATO. And so, uh, they're going to keep moving forward, and it doesn't look like the United States is trying to find any way out. So all I can say to that is they're going to go till it's over, till there's nothing left to claim.

To the last Ukrainian.

Till the last Ukrainian dies.

And before I forget, it used to be— it was a secret memo that was released back in 2011. At that time, I was still in Washington, and the plan has already been in motion, per se, because a lot of people do not know that this started from 2007. 2007 all the way through to 2014. Of course, when the coup happened, then it keeps going to what it is.

Was part of that the, the, the Yet Means Yet memo from— was that Burns?

That is correct.

Okay.

From William Burns. And it was another one that was because that was in a reflection of the book that was written by none other than Michael McFaul. You know who Michael McFaul What was the book about? A short version of it: the 7 key points of taking down a regime. So this is where— this is Michael McFaul, ambassador himself, which one day I remember he put something on Twitter and I kind of answered him straightforward. Never heard back from him because I faced him with facts regarding this, because I was aware of the issue on what's going on.

And there's another book by Blinken, um, 'Ally Versus Ally,' which talks about, you know, the conflict over pipelines. And so you can see, in fact, you can see, here it is, 'Ally Versus Ally.' Tony Blinken wrote that years ago. It might have been his— yeah, wrote that years ago.

Yeah, very interesting. And speaking of the pipeline, I don't know if you were aware that Sweden officially closed the investigation on pipeline. Yeah.

Yes. Yeah.

Well, how can we close an investigation without knowing who the culprit is? That's— to me, it doesn't make sense.

That doesn't make sense. And that goes to— that also goes to a comment that President Putin made in his interview where he said that the whole pipeline was not destroyed. There's one pipe that is still functional. He says, why don't you turn that up? He says, you can get Russian gas to Germany through Poland. Why won't you turn that up? You can get Russian gas to Germany through Ukraine. Why won't you turn that up? So it's not that these problems can't be solved. —and you mentioning that Brzezinski's son is the ambassador to Poland, now I understand part of that question. But all of that factors into, it's not that the problems can't be solved, they can be solved simply, but the United States does not want those solutions.

Yeah, well, I look at it like what the Chinese proposed, the 12 talking points regarding the peace, and we rejected it. Right out immediately. We kind of like, no, we don't want the Chinese to get involved into this. But I read, I read that proposal, Wilmer. It makes perfect sense to me. But again, it's because the US is not gonna allow that one. So, all right, let me see, uh, any question from you guys. Oh, by the way, I'm seeing someone here I didn't see for a long time. Good to see you as always. So, uh, let me see, guys, if you have a question for Dr. Leon. He'll be happy to answer this one here for you. And, uh, I am hoping you guys— there was some super stickers earlier, I couldn't read it. I am so sorry, guys. Uh, let me see if there is a question here. Well, here is first one. I want to say thank you to Nick, Nick H. Thank you very much for your super sticker. Truly Truly appreciate it. Uh, it was another one with a question, I believe. If this thing, the chat box, uh, gets overwhelmed with the— when you have almost 800 people, it gets overwhelmed. But I understand. Yeah, the guys usually put Q so I know it's a question, uh, for, for you. And I'll— and I'm scrolling down quickly here to see if that pops up. And, uh, I hope you guys enjoyed Dr. Leon. We're gonna have him back here, don't worry, he'll be back here.

Well, thank you, thank you, thank you.

So he'll be back here, and I'm very grateful that you were able to, uh, yeah, here is one here, uh, uh, one word: Dr. Leon, our Congress members, they want you to run for Congress. No, no, they don't. Corrupt bribe. You're right. Thank you so much, Stefan. Truly appreciate it. I appreciate it. Let me just see one more here if there is question. And, uh, I'm just scrolling down quickly here to see. Yeah, the, uh, yeah, interesting where things are headed. I mean, it, it saddens me to see what our country is becoming.

I, I agree with you 1,000%. Really, really sad. So, and also, oh, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. No, oh no, that, that a lot—

I want to say thank you here to Stephen Hayes again. You put Chinese balloons delivered clean t-shirts and dog food, Mike Bone treats, and Biden blabbered about Ukraine and people helped genocide in Palestine. Thank you very much for sharing this. Truly appreciate your Super Sticker. Yeah, go ahead one more.

No, just that a lot of the the power projection and the violence, the war that the United States is engaging in on foreign soil also contributes greatly to the mindset of a lot of people in this country and the violence that we see here. We can't really separate the two. And so in a lot of our urban centers, and we see a lot of these atrocious acts being engaged in by American citizens, some of that, what contributes to a lot of that is America is a violent country. It has always been a violent country. It was born out of conquest. It was born out of the United States imposing its will on indigenous people murdering those people and taking their land. And that, that's been— that's who America is. That's what our history tells us. And so you cannot separate the violence that we see at home on the domestic front with the violence that the United States is engaged in internationally. Indeed, indeed.

There is a question from Arm Me With Harmony, and thank you so much for your Super Sticker. The question is, how might the US respond to a group that is— we don't use the term here because you know how it is, Wilmer— cutting submerged internet cable? In your opinion, uh, if the US—

how might— I'm not, I'm not familiar with the cutting of submerged internet cables, but what I'll say to you is that It was reported as far back as last month that the Saudis and Ansar Allah were about to engage in a peace plan, and the United States stepped in and told the Saudis, under no circumstance are we going to allow that to happen. And then it was just, I want to say, about 10 days ago that the Saudis came out and said again, we've reached a peace agreement with Ansar Allah. And the United States said, no, we're going to designate Ansar Allah as a terrorist organization. And so if you engage in those, in that peace agreement, you will be sanctioned. And one of the things that the, one of the big issues between the South had to do with with the payment of Yemeni civil servants. They wanted to be paid and they wanted back pay, and they were negotiating that point. And the United States said, once we designate them as a terrorist organization, you will not be able to engage in financial transactions with them. Interesting. So I'm not sure about the internet cable cut, I'm not aware of that. But what I've just described is the bigger picture on how the United States is. Why, when peace is on the horizon, does the United States turn to darkness? Well, I mean, that's rhetorical. Yeah.

Here is my last question here before we let Dr. Leon go. From Po Yan So. Thank you so much for being here. Question: not that it will happen, but if war breaks out with China, will the United States also fight with North Korea?

Because North Korea will come to China's aid. Unfortunately, I think the answer to that question is yes, and that will result in the end of South Korea and could possibly result in the end of Japan because the, the, the military support agreements, um, I believe are such, are such that it's not just North Korea. South Korea would be the, the United States point of access there, and Japan would be brought in as well. And I think Kim Jong-un is, is ready for that conflict.

Yeah, that guy doesn't bluff. He doesn't bluff. Uh, where, by the way, where my viewers can find you, Dr.

Leon? The simplest place to find me is at wilmerleon.com, which is my website, wilmerleon.com. You can also find me at Connecting the Dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon. That's my podcast, Connecting the Dots. With Dr. Wilmer Leon. I'm on Facebook at Dr. Wilmer Leon. SiriusXM 126 Urban View Saturdays from 11 to 2 PM Eastern. Radio Sputnik Monday through Friday from 2 to 4 Eastern with my co-host Garland Nixon.

Yeah. And I'm also, guys, going to put all those links for you in description. This one here, if you want to watch, uh, Dr. Leon's, uh, speech, it was on YouTube there. It was very, very interesting one. I, I listened to it and I'll put all the links for you. So later on, guys. So, well, Dr. Leon, I can't thank you enough for really carving out this time for me here. I truly appreciate it and I look forward to having you again. So it's an honor. Take care. Bye-bye. All right guys, I hope you all enjoyed this. And again, I wanted to bring someone from here, the United States, so you can hear it with your own, with your, with your own, uh, sort of ears, per se. It's because someone with, with, with the rational thinking, logical reasoning— and there are voices of reason here in the United States, not a whole lot of bad. But we all know the government sometimes does things not on our name, you know, whatever the government is doing in my name I don't even agree with this government. I don't even recognize whatever. So that's just, uh, and this is the reason why I wanted to, uh, uh, extended the invitation. And I was, uh, very, very, uh, or I am, uh, grateful that Dr. Leon agreed to come on, on our show. We'll bring him over again. So as always, guys, I hope you enjoy this, and I look forward to seeing you next time. As always, remember geopolitics impact your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, guys. Bye-bye.