Ray Interviewed on Russia and Ukraine

The Critical Hour (13 min.)
June 30, 2022

Ray’s article Thursday morning formed the backdrop, as interviewer Wilmer Leon began with its introductory paragraphs:


Incongruity was the hallmark of the extraordinary NATO summit just concluded in Madrid. NATO offered bluster and promised muster: more troops against its “most significant and direct threat ,” Russia. Meanwhile, Russian “cauldron” maneuvers in Donbas methodically destroyed or enveloped major units of Kyiv’s army, further strengthening Russia’s position there.

Those of realistic and compassionate bent can but harbor hope that, before there is only a cadaver of Ukraine left to defend, Kyiv sees the handwriting on the wall and cries Uncle, despite what the Ukrainians are hearing from an Uncle Sam. He seems to have a remarkable tolerance for carnage – in Ukraine.

As for NATO bluster … part of the U.S. muster of troops is destined for Poland, where the US is establishing a permanent headquarters.

Polish President Andrzej Duda claims “Russia is a threat for all of NATO” … and that multiplying NATO’s “Rapid Reaction Force” will make Europe “safer”.

A serious claim that Russia wants to attack Poland or any other NATO member should be accompanied by evidence. No one can be permitted to employ the recently coined “Giuliani Dictum:” ‘Lots of Theories, But No Evidence’.


As John Mearsheimer has pointed out, there is zero evidence that Russia plans to attack a NATO country.

‘Grim’ is the Word – at Least for Ukrainians

Turning to the latest from U.S. intelligence, I included some detail from a Reuters report Wednesday quoting National Intelligence Director Avril Haines. She told a Commerce Department conference: (a) The war will grind on “for an extended period of time; (b) “The picture remains pretty grim and Russia’s attitude toward the West is hardening.”

The Reuters journalists made bold to suggest that Haines’ comments mean that the billions of dollars in modern arms being supplied by the United States and other countries to Zelinskiy’s forces may not give them the ability to turn the tide against Russia any time soon.

By now, that much should be abundantly clear; the only real news here is that some Establishment media are beginning to concede it. And yet the mutually affirming lemmings of NATO continue to say send those arms anyway. And Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, et al. rejoice.

What Worries Moscow the Most

I closed the interview addressing what I believe bothers Putin the most. Culling from my antiwar.com article Thursday morning, I cited what Putin had said a few days earlier; namely, that Russia planned to send nuclear-capable missiles to Belarus within months.

Putin made that promise in a meeting with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. “We will transfer to Belarus Iskander-M tactical missile systems, which can use ballistic or cruise missiles, in their conventional and nuclear versions,” Putin said, according to Russia’s state-owned Tass news agency. “It’s a deal.”

Watch the choreographed tête-à-tête between Putin and Lukashenko – and ponder the implications.

Former Russian president Dimitry Medvedev also recently threatened to move Iskander hypersonic missiles “onto the threshold” of Russia’s Scandanavian and Baltic State neighbors.

Moscow’s approach on this issue mirror-images its acute concern over U.S. missile launch sites already emplaced in Romania, and almost complete in Poland, that can host offensive, nuclear-capable missiles threatening western Russia. Putin has worried aloud at having a mere 5 to 7 minutes warning time in such case.

Promises That Evaporate

The emplacement of what the Russians call “offensive strike missiles” in sites near Russia’s border is a glowing red line. For many years Putin has complained that so-called “ABM” sites in Romania and Poland can be converted overnight into launchers for “offensive strike missiles” — Tomahawk cruise missiles, for example, and, later, hypersonic ones.

A major concern, of course, is warning time; that is, the ever-shrinking minutes from the missile launch to target. Put yourself in Putin’s – or Biden’s – place, facing a decision as to whether, in effect, to end human life on planet earth.

After Putin spoke, at his urgent request, with President Biden by telephone on Dec. 30, 2021, the Kremlin readout included this:

“Joseph Biden emphasized … that Washington had no intention of deploying offensive strike weapons in Ukraine.”

No one challenged the accuracy of the Russian readout; that part of it was ignored in the West, but loudly rejoiced at in Moscow.

Does anyone know why/how that that key point made by Biden fell into the cracks? We are talking here about one president’s direct personal assurance to the other. The key role played by trust (or distrust) can hardly be exaggerated.

This short video clip from 2015 provides a sense of how frustrated Putin has been, in trying to get people (in this case Western journalists) to put themselves in his shoes. I invite you to click on the two-and-a-half minute segment from minute 10:20 to 12:55.