RADIO

Does the CIA WANT World War III? This Ukrainian Admission Suggests So

Many Americans have felt for a while now that, for some reason, Western leaders don’t want the war in Ukraine to end — and might even want it to turn into World War III. Glenn reads an article from the New York Times that sheds light on that possibility. In the article (which keeps reporting on alleged “secrets” that military leaders wouldn’t usually want leaked to Russia), Ukrainian military officials admit that the CIA has been funding a spy base in Ukraine. And for the past 10 years, the CIA has been using Ukraine as an important “intelligence partner” to spy on Russia. Paired with the news that Hungary is suddenly okay with allowing Sweden to join NATO, Glenn is left with only one conclusion: “There is a game being played here that I really don’t like.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want you to listen to this story from the New York Times. And just help me out a bit, will you?

STU: Sure. Of course.

GLENN: Nestled in a tense forest. The Ukrainian military base appears abandoned and destroyed.

Its command center, a burned out husk, a casualty of a Russian missile barrage early in the war.

But that is only what's above ground. Not far away, a secret passageway descends to a subterranean bunker, where teams of Ukrainian soldiers track Russian spy satellites and eavesdrops on communications and conversations between Russian commanders.

On one screen, a red line followed the route of an explosive drone, as they threaded through the Russian air defenses. From the point in central Ukraine, to target in the Russian city of Rostov.

Now, Stu.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I don't think this is a secret. When it's in the New York Times.

But my first question here is: Why would the New York Times be talking about something that's just a few yards away, from a military base.

It's probably not hard to narrow this down. From a military base. Where there's hardened bunkers. Tracking everything.

And sending the drones, that they're trying to stop. Why would the in this put that in there?

STU: It seems --

GLENN: A good story?

STU: It seems like a bad move, if Ukraine to be victorious in a war. You wouldn't necessarily want to tip your hands to a Russian. You're right, they don't 79 to give specifics, exactly. Again, this is something they probably pretty easily can narrow down.

So, yeah. Why would you do this?

GLENN: So now, the next paragraph comes in.

The Russian underground -- sorry, the underground bunker, built to replace the destroyed command center, in the months after Russia's invasion, is a secret -- it's not secret. If I am reading about it in the New York -- is a secret nerve center of the Ukrainian military. Paragraph, but there's also one more secret, that now that we're printing it, it's no longer a secret.

The base is almost fully financed and partially equipped by the CIA.

General Sernie DeVoreski (phonetic) said 110 percent. Really? 110 percent?

That's true?

It took root, a decade ago. Coming together, in fits and starts, under three very different US presidents.

Pushing forward by key individuals, who often took daring risks.

It had transformed Ukraine. Whose intelligence agencies were long seen as thoroughly compromised by Russia. Into one of Washington's most trust and had important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today.

The CIA helped train a new generation of Ukrainian spies, who operate inside of Russia. Across Europe. And in Cuba. And other places, where the Russians have a large presence.

Well, that's helpful.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Can we reveal the knock list too?

The relationship is so engrained, that the CIA officers remained at a remote location in western Ukraine. When the Biden administration evacuated US personnel in the weeks before Russia invaded.

During the invasion, the officers relayed critical intelligence. Including where Russia was planning strikes, and which weapon systems they would use.

The Russian head of the -- or sorry. The head of the Ukrainian domestic intelligence agencies, said, without the CIA, it would have been -- there would be no way for us to resist the Russians. Or to beat them.

Oh. Now, Stu. Why would the New York Times print this?

STU: Maybe they're desirous of World War III. Huh.

STU: One potential explanation. Like you're trying to spark a flame that will result in all of us being lit on fire. And a fire explosion, across the entire globe.

GLENN: What would make you to jump to something like that?

STU: Well, it seems like, if what you're -- if the basic argument is, actually, we've been spying on Russia, through Ukraine this entire time.

And these suspicions of Vladimir Putin, that the West is using Ukraine, for these types of purposes, are well -- have a pretty viable foundation of truth.

That seems to be a terrible, terrible thing to be throwing into the New York Times.

Now, look, I would assume, the Russian military is aware of a lot of these things already. Obviously, it's their job and their business.

But I don't think drawing more attention to it, say good idea.

GLENN: So let me ask you: It's implied.

And pretty much everybody knows.

That Russia and China are hacking into our systems. That Russia has hacked into our power grid, et cetera, et cetera.

But what does Putin say about it, and the Russian media?

STU: Nothing.

GLENN: Not true. That's not true. We don't do that.

Okay. What if it came out in Pravda. And it quoted the head of the operation, in Russia. And it said, absolutely. We are targeting their critical infrastructure for years now. We have them on the ropes.

And you know who told us all of this? Canada. Canada has been working with us to make sure the Niagara Falls power plant is the first to fall.

What would we do?

We are headed for World War III.

Let me give you a couple of stories, that show, that this is wanted by too many people.

This is from the Financial Times, this weekend.

Jens Stoltenberg said that there was no doubt that Ukraine would join NATO, as Western leaders gathered in Kyiv to pledge support and mark the second anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion.

The NATO chief said on Saturday, that Russia president Vladimir Putin started this war, because he wanted to close NATO's door.

But he has achieved the exact opposite.

That Ukraine is now closer to NATO than ever before.

Huh. He said, NATO is helping Kyiv to make its forces more and more interoperable. Ukraine will join NATO. It's not a question of if. But of when.

He insisted.

Okay. Let's see. So on the same weekend. We have NATO.

What Putin said, was the real problem.

They were going to expand NATO. To places like Ukraine.

Yes. We're going to do that. We're going to do that now.

And also, that's the same weekend, that the New York Times reports their secret underground bunkers are run by the CIA.

Okay.

STU: Great.

GLENN: Now. If, again, this was about Canada.

And -- and Russia said, they're expanding their presence.

And they will put military in Canada, on our border. And they admitted to, you know, doing secret operations with Canada.

To be able to destroy us. What would we do?

Mr. Orbán came out.

Victor Orban of Hungary. He declared an end to the month's long spat with Sweden over the expansion of NATO. Saying, that a visit by his Swedish counterparts had rebuilt trust and paved the way for Hungarian parliament to vote on Monday. That's yesterday. To ratify the Nordic nation's membership in NATO.

We're ready to fight for each other, to give our lives for one another. He said. Really?

The sudden warming of relations between the two countries, followed a decision by Sweden to provide Hungary with four Swedish-made Gripen fighter jets, in addition to the 14 its Air Force already uses. And a promise that Saab, the maker of the warplanes will open an artificial intelligence research center in Hungary.

Okay. So that's -- that's good. That's good.

Why are we headed toward war?

Why?

STU: By the way, Sweden -- or Hungary did approve that in Sweden. That -- what you mentioned, 188 to six.

GLENN: Yeah. I believe Hungary was the one saying, let's not piss off the bear. Why would we be talking about expanding NATO?

I believe I've heard Orbán say those very things. Why would we do that?

Four jets? Really? That's all it took, was four jets?

I don't think so. I don't think so.

There's a game being played here, that, I really don't like.

And our country is becoming a little crazy. Let me give you this story.

The Iranian-backed Hamas terrorist group, praised a far left extremist, who lit himself on fire, outside of the Israeli embassy, in Washington, DC.

On Sunday.

And used his death to promote Islamic terrorist propaganda.

Aaron Bushnell, a low level software engineer, with the US Air Force, screamed free Palestine, as flames engulfed his body, after he -- doused himself, with a flammable liquid.

And then lit himself on fire. He later died, from injuries.

Bushnell repeated terrorist propaganda in the moments leading up to the incident. Falsely claiming that what was happening inside Gaza was genocide. And calling Israel colonizers.

Now, that sounds like a far left radical, doesn't it?

Oh, I forgot. We're not looking for hard left radicals.

In the military. Only those Christian nationalists and those who want to have insurrection in the United States.

Now, here's why this is so bad.

Let me -- let me take you first, to what Cornell West tweeted.

Let us never forget the extraordinary courage, and commitment of brother, Aaron Bushnell who can died for truth and justice.

I pray for his precious loved ones.

Let us rededicate ourselves to genuine solidarity with the Palestinians. Undergoing genocidal attacks in real time.

I want you to mark this place, in time. Right now.

This truly is a mile-marker.

This makes Aaron into some kind of suicide bomber. When, you know, they'll be rewarded in heaven.

We are not a culture that rewards suicide, or suicide acts. Suicidal acts. Especially for politics. Instead of one of the 50,000 plus Americans who committed suicide in the last year, instead of mourning another lost life -- lost to mental illness.

We are confusing suicide with martyrdom. Those who kill themselves for ideology should not be praised. But that's exactly what Hamas said, that's exactly what Cornell West said.

Praising ideology, over human life.

That's not a Rubicon we care to cross.

But we're crossing it right now.

TV

NEW GAMESHOW: The WORST Tesla Vandal Videos!

It's time for America's most DESTRUCTIVE game show: "NAME! THAT! MANIFESTO!" Game show host Glenn Beck brings in the contestants, BlazeTV hosts Stu Burguiere and Dave Landau, to watch the worst of the latest attacks on Tesla vehicles. After watching the short clip, contestants must guess why the perpetrator vandalized the car. Was it climate extremism? Was it to push for communism? Was it just that they hate Elon Musk? Or was it because Disney's "Snow White" crashed at the box office? Play along at home and find out!

RADIO

Did Fake News Just Crash the Market? The Grim Reality Unveiled

The stock market went on a rollercoaster ride due to fake news that President Trump is pausing his reciprocal tariffs for 90 days. Glenn and Stu take a look at the story, why it’s evidence that maybe we should slow the panic a little bit, and how it can help us interpret the stock market moving forward. Plus, Glenn and Stu review a new poll that doesn’t look good for humanity: how many people think they can outrun a horse?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

We have an update. The market bounced back after it was released in the news, that Donald Trump may consider a 90-day pause. And then we were watching it bounce back. And then all of a sudden, it dropped down again. And it lost, maybe 200 points? Again.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Not detainer sure what happened until we checked the news.

STU: It seems like all these media organizations reported, an interpretation from some social media of your of an interview. In which the interview.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. I want to track that back down.

Of an interview with Trump?

STU: No. That was a good question.

It was a Trump official.

GLENN: Named official? Or Trump official, official?

So we have Trump. And then we have the Trump official.

And then it's -- it's somebody on social media. Doing an analysis of what that Trump official said. Right.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And then the media picks up on that.

So they're quoting.

STU: National economic counsel director Kevin Hassett.

Basically, all he said was like, look, I think -- he was asked by Brian Kilmeade.

Would Trump consider a 90-day pause?

And hasn't said, I think the president will decide what the president will decide.

GLENN: Well, and that means, yes. He will consider.

STU: It's incredible.

GLENN: That's how -- that's why where we that story.

We gave it to you, like four minutes ago.

Go off the air. Like commercial break. And it's all reversed. The stock market goes down. I think we should probably slow down a little bit.

There's no --

STU: We even brought it up. It's to discuss why the market moved. Why the market moved.

So it -- it's an appropriate explanation, I think.

But now --

GLENN: Official breaking, the White House now says, 1900 day pause is fake news.

STU: There's no pause. For you the market is down again.

GLENN: That is crazy.

STU: You know, I will say this, Glenn.

And I don't know what you think about this as far as politics go. Taking it out where you end up on this. We've had really bad economic times before. Right? COVID. Housing crisis in '08. The bursting of the bubble of the internet back in 2000. And you go back to '87, right? That market crashed.

All those things.

All those things came from what seemed like an outside event.

Right? To the American people.

Seemed like, you talked about the housing policies. And what led to the housing crisis for years before that.

And warned about that for years. So there were policies that were directly associated with that. But that's not how the American people took that. It felt like, oh, gosh. The housing market just crashed.

COVID just happened.

You know, this one, I think to the American people, right or wrong, is going to feel like, tariffs caused this.

And I'm worried about how they interpret that.

GLENN: Let me help you out on that.

That's because people did not interpret the stock market and what is going on in our economy as bogus.

STU: Yes, you're right. I think you're right.

GLENN: It's all this bogus money that the Fed keeps printing. And putting in the system with 0 percent interest rate.

It's all funny money. The stock market is no longer tied to anything real.

And everybody -- everybody just bypassed that. And went, wow. Things are really good. Things are really good.

No!

It was all bogus.

All of that is bogus.

STU: I sensed the weakness during Biden. Right?

The market went up with bind. They sensed the weakness.

They sensed it in the economy.

I think the optimism of Trump's policies. Launched into another stratosphere.

GLENN: That is our McDonald's attitude!

That is, yeah. I would like some tariffs. And I Diet Coke.

I mean, no! This is not a drive through. You're not going to get it, by the time you get up to the window.

STU: But I think that's the point I bring up. I think that's how a lot of people consume things.

GLENN: Correct.

Look what just happened!

Stock market. The stock market.

People who are supposedly, you know, educated, they turned that thing on a dime he has

STU: Yeah. But that's people who are really engaged, right?

They're overreacting to news that they are seeing.

The average person is not even following this on a day-to-day basis. They're seeing that general downturn. And if that continues with them, I -- I wonder if this is going to be seen, if this is -- turns into a recession, which it's not yet. If it turns into a long-term negative consequence, it could be seen as essentially Trump's fault. Which means that the entire movement has problems. As opposed to COVID, what people saw was, okay. China released this virus, or it started in China. It took over everything.

GLENN: No, they blamed it on Trump because the media did.

STU: I don't think he took.

I mean, I think he won in 2024.

Because of what people remembered in his economy in 2014.

2020, was some outside thing that he couldn't do something about.

GLENN: Why did he lose then?

The economy was doing really, really well.

Why did he lose? They blamed him for COVID, shutting us down.

Blah, blah, blah. You know, the stuff that he did. That made sense, at the very beginning.

STU: Right.

I remember that being more broad an argument. I mean, no one thought it was Trump's fault that the economy crashed because of COVID.

You can blame him and say, hey.

I don't think he should have locked down. Again, he didn't really do that.

GLENN: Democrats have country that. Look what he did to the economy, and they won. And they won.

STU: They did win. They did win.

GLENN: So I think that's the ill-informed again. Let me give you this survey. Ready for this survey?

STU: Hit me with it. Hit me with it.

GLENN: Out of 50 men, if you ask them, in 100-meter sprint, can you beat a horse?

How many say yes?

STU: How many say yes, they could beat a horse?

GLENN: Beat a horse.

STU: A specific horse. Could be a horse that's dead?

GLENN: No. No. No, just a regular horse.

STU: So we assume a normal horse at a regular speed. Not necessarily a race horse. Just a normal horse.

GLENN: No, just a horse. I can outrun a horse.

STU: The correct answer to this would be zero. Zero. That's what it should be.

GLENN: Zero. Because a racehorse can run 40 miles an hour. Doughnut if you know this, you can't. Usain Bolt, he's the fastest in a sprint, 27 miles an hour. Okay?

Horse, a little faster. Okay?

So only 2 percent out of 50. So not --

STU: Okay. That's not actually bad. 2 percent will say anything, right?

GLENN: That's the one they say is number 15 on the big charts of animals I could beat. Okay?

There are 15. Then you get to a zebra. Okay. I will pass that on, maybe you don't think zebras actually exist. You know, we have none here.

STU: It is strange.

GLENN: Deer? I could outrun a deer. A fox. An ostrich. Number ten, I can outrun a cheetah!

STU: A cheetah would be the one I would think would be the lowest number. Because theater fastest animal. Right?

GLENN: Right. A kangaroo. A mongoose. I don't even what an a mongoose is. So I will give this a pass.

Ready for this? I can outrun a swarm of bees.

STU: I mean, no. You can't. Not for a long time.

GLENN: No, no, I don't think you can. I don't think you can. Have you ever seen --

STU: They are fast.

GLENN: Why wouldn't people just run? If the bees -- when you're being swarmed, just run. They can't keep up with you. You can't outrun bees. I can outrun a house cat?

STU: No. I mean, people have seen cats before, they're fast.

GLENN: I can outrun a goat. I can outrun a rabbit.

STU: A goat. How fast are goats?

GLENN: I don't have that stat. I don't have that stat.

STU: I don't -- all the other ones seem completely absurd. I'm thinking of a goat.

They're kind of climbing a side of a mountain.

They don't look that fast. I could probably take them.

GLENN: Would you say, yes, I could probably take a goat. I don't know.

GLENN: Okay. A goat? A rabbit?

STU: No. Rabbits are incredibly fast, no.

GLENN: Okay. A hippopotamus.

STU: I mean, a hippo, again, I've never raised a hippo myself.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: But I -- like, a hippo doesn't seem like a fast animal. They move pretty slow.
GLENN: Is it the hippopotamus or the rhinoceros? One of those is the most deadly animal alive. They're fast, and they'll stomp you to death.

STU: Really? I thought it was mosquitoes. Aren't mosquitoes the most deadly animal?

GLENN: No. Of course not. I can outrun a mosquito.

Number two.

STU: Why don't we tell that to the African nations. Tell your people to outrun a mosquito.

GLENN: Run? Why don't you run? Number two, I can outrun an elephant?

STU: Yeah. See, an elephant does not look like it moves quickly. But the strides are large. You have to factor that in.

GLENN: I don't have to factor that in. I just know, I can't outrun an elephant. They're fast animals. They're an animal. They're a giant animal.

STU: So are we. We're all animals.

GLENN: Right. Yeah. Not fast!

STU: Look, I'm not saying I would say that I could outrun an elephant. I could understand why someone might say that.

GLENN: Why do you think we invented the gun? Why do you think men invented the gun? We couldn't outrun any of these animals.

STU: That's a good point.

GLENN: Okay? That's the only reason why we're at the top of the food chain.

Because we're like, oh, really? Take that elephant. I can outrun an elephant. Yes, if I have a rifle.

I will do that.

STU: Because then it can be dead. And you can walk away from it.

GLENN: So we don't. We have a pretty healthy, we have a pretty healthy view of ourself.

10 percent say that they have actually -- sorry, 28 percent say they have actually been out in the wild, some place, and clocked an animal, and thought to themselves. I can outrun that!

A tenth of them have actually tried to do that. I don't know. Got out of their car. And was like, come on, horse. Bring it on.

And 11 percent.

Now, out of those showdowns, mainly with dogs. 61 percent have tried to race their dog. 26 percent have tried to race their cat.

I mean --

STU: How would you even do such a thing. 19 percent have tried to race a goat. Okay?

But 60 percent. Only 60 percent said, yeah. I couldn't -- I couldn't run. 26 percent considered themselves winners. And here's my favorite, 14 percent said it was a draw. It was a draw.

I mean, I think we both -- I talked to the goat afterwards. You agree, right?

We finished. We're basically at the same place. And you have four legs. So, you know, you might have run double the distance. But you have double the legs. So we're a draw, right?

Oh, my gosh.

I think we're a -- I think we're in trouble.

18 percent say they would back themselves to beat -- beat somebody in an arm-wrestling match. Only 11 percent of women. Why?

Wait. Why would only 11 percent of women? Women are no different than men. Hold on just a second.

Oh, it's ego probably.

It's mansplaining. The 26 percent of men say I could beat anybody in a wrestling match, and only 11 percent of women.

Probably because of what men have said to women. That you are not strong enough to beat a big, strong guy.

Because we all know that could happen. 72 percent of all respondents admitted that men are more likely to believe that men could beat an animal, than -- than women.

My favorite, is sure, I can outrun a horse, I can outrun a cheetah. But some -- some people -- one in 50, believe they can outswim a dolphin.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Don't know if you know this, they're in the water. That's their domain. You know.

Now, I could outrun a dolphin. You put one on the beach. I'll beat him every single time. Outswim him? No. I don't -- uh-uh.

I don't think. You should probably -- you get a nap in. Let's readdress this maybe tomorrow.

TV

Decoding Trump's Ukraine/Russia Negotiations

Context is key when trying to understand President Trump’s negotiations to end the Ukraine/Russia war. How did this war even begin in the first place? Will Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio be able to end it? What do Presidents Zelenskyy and Putin really want? Glenn heads to the chalkboard to lay out the entire timeline and explain how America – mostly the Deep State – played a major role in causing this mess.

Watch the FULL SHOW here

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

The Truth Behind Conservatives' Shift on Trump's Tariffs | Ep 252

Donald Trump is the only one telling the American economy, “You have cancer!” Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, says, “The treatment is going to be a little painful.” Kevin responds to criticisms that the Heritage Foundation has changed its position on tariffs, explains why the president’s treatment of Canada may be a “tactical error,” and says it’s time for tax cuts, deregulation, and to stop the “fuzzy math happening in Congress” and cut the budget. Considering why the Epstein files “landed like a lead balloon,” Kevin posits that Pam Bondi is “understaffed” and celebrates what he believes is the best assembled Cabinet in modern history. They discuss nuclear energy, the Chinese Communist Party, the DOGE, and how the socialist president of Mexico “understands Trump.” They both agree that we are experiencing the “second American revolution” and lauded the gutting of the Department of Education and the vision of JD Vance, while warning that “not everyone in Silicon Valley is our friend.” In the end, they have to ask, is Donald Trump moving too fast?