In this monologue, the speaker argues that the upcoming U.S. presidential election carries profound international stakes that are largely unaddressed in public discourse. Citing a recent Commission on National Defense warning that the United States faces its most serious threats since 1945, the speaker highlights two escalating conflicts: (1) the Middle‑East confrontation sparked by Israel’s strikes on Iranian proxies, Iran’s missile barrage, and the potential for U.S. involvement; and (2) the war in Ukraine, focusing on the unprecedented August 6 2024 Ukrainian incursion into Russia’s Kursk region using Western‑supplied weapons. The speaker points out contradictory U.S. messaging—official denial of knowledge about the Kursk operation yet a claim that it does not violate policy—while noting President Zelensky’s request for U.S. long‑range strike permission. Putin’s September 12 2024 warning that such U.S. support would make NATO a direct combatant is presented as a warning of broader escalation. The speaker ties these developments to the Biden‑Harris administration, the BRICS/Shanghai Cooperation alignment of Russia and Iran with China, and stresses that voters need to understand how the election outcome could shape U.S. responses to these high‑risk flashpoints.
Chapters
We're discussing the international stakes of the upcoming U.S. presidential election, which is less than 30 days away. And I was saying that any American with eyes understands the domestic stakes of this election, but few people have a handle on the geopolitical stakes. Just last week, the Commission on National Defense released an announcement saying, quote, the threats the US faces are the most serious and the most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war. The nation was prepared for such a fight during the Cold War. It is not prepared today. During the presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on September 10th, during the most recent vice presidential debate, too. And during many interviews between these two candidates, we seldom see reporters actually making it clear to the American people what the stakes are and asking the candidates how they would appropriately handle the ever-widening conflicts in the Middle East and in Ukraine. We were discussing how in the wake of Israel's spectacularly successful assaults on Iran's terrorist proxies, namely Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran fired 200 ballistic missiles at Israel, and Israel is promising a response. Iran has said, though, that if the United States were to assist Israel in a response inside of the country of Iran, that Iran would consider the United States to be a legitimate target. Now, a similar situation is happening with the war in Ukraine. We know that since Putin invaded Ukraine 2 years ago, that the Russian army has made significant advances in the east. They haven't taken over the whole country, but they have control of Crimea. They have since 2014, and they have a lot of the eastern territory of Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has unveiled what he calls a new, quote, victory strategy in Ukraine. And it is specifically using conventional weapons inside of the Russian interior in order to debilitate the Russian army. Now, that's a very different approach than we've seen Ukraine take over the past 2, 2.5 years, because what they've been trying to do is push back the Russian army inside the interior of Ukraine. They had not yet gone into the interior of Russia. In fact, no power has gone into the interior of Russia and attacked Russia since World War II. This changed, though, on August 6th of this year. And it really is amazing that As I said, Americans don't know about this, and this was not relayed appropriately to Americans during the presidential debate. On August 6th, 2024, the Ukrainian army launched an attack in the Russian region of Kursk. Kursk is bordering Ukraine. It's right there on the border. They took over certain villages in Kursk and they destroyed bridges. And crucially, Ukraine used Western weaponry to do so. British tanks and US rocket systems mainly. Now, President Volodymyr Zelensky traveled to the United States two weeks ago, and he actually visited the Biden, really the Harris White House, and he asked for permission by the United States to continue assaults inside of the Russian interior. And specifically, he used— he asked for permission to use American long-range weapons to shoot inside of the interior of Russia. When the Kursk operation happened on August 6th, the U.S. Department of State spokesperson Matthew Miller said that the United States didn't know about the Kursk operation and the use of American weapons. But nevertheless, he said that those actions are, quote, not in violation of United States policy. Really? For a long time, America had a ban on Ukraine using long-range missile systems to hit targets inside of Russia because that would be considered a provocation. But then after the incursion in Kursk, Matthew Miller is saying that, quote, this is not in violation of US policy. Isn't that a disparity in messaging? Vladimir Putin had something to say about this on September 12th, 2024. He warned that if the United States allowed a Kursk-like invasion again, and if the United States allowed Ukraine to shoot conventional weapons, American weapons, inside of the Russian interior, quote, it will mean nothing less than the direct participation of NATO countries, the United States, and European countries in this conflict. Putin furthered, quote, this would change the essence of the conflict by putting NATO countries and Western nations at war. With Russia. So we see in the past 2 months that both of these conflicts started during the Biden-Harris administration have widened. And both of our principal adversaries who are aligned with China politically and economically through the BRICS economic conglomeration, through the Shanghai Cooperative Organization, which is a political entity run by Beijing of non-Western countries, we see with both Iran and Russia that they have said to the United States, if you aid your allies by giving them weapons to use inside the interior of our country, we will consider that an act of war by you.
