By Uriel Araujo, InfoBrics, 7/30/25

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

With the recent developments involving Ghislaine Maxwell, the Jeffrey Epstein scandal (involving the trafficking of teenage girls for powerful individuals) is definitely back in the spotlight, and analysts are wondering the extent to which this could undermine Donald Trump’s presidency, given his ties to Epstein.

With reports on Trump’s involvement with the Elite Model teen abuse scandal of the nineties, and the Virginia Giuffre case (who worked at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and then for Epstein), it is fair to say that the American leader is under attack in terms of media coverage. Accusations of pedophilia and cover-ups swirl, but framing all of this as mere “personal indiscretions” or personal wrongdoings, grave as they are, on Trump’s part would be a mistake. It is a US systemic societal and state issue.

Releasing the Epstein files was ironically enough initially promised by Trump’s own task force. One may recall that the Epstein case “backfired” on Trump largely thanks to Elon Musk, who also had his own ties to the billionaire. As I suggested back in February, it’s not far-fetched to see Trump’s task force for releasing classified files, including those on Epstein, as a strategy to weaponize information for leverage. The risk, I argued, was self-incrimination, given Trump’s own ties to Epstein — and to other organized crime figures. The “break-up” with Musk seems to have sparked precisely such backfire.

Consider the fact that the aforementioned Ghislaine Maxwell (Epstein’s girlfriend and “madam”) was granted limited immunity for two days of interviews with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and now she claims to be ready to testify before the US Congress, if given clemency. Her attorney has confirmed she answered questions about approximately 100 individuals. The timing is quite interesting to say the least — and the implication is clear: Maxwell’s list of names may very well be weaponized to shift the narrative, thereby shielding powerful figures including Trump from further scrutiny. But one needs to look still beyond that.

I wrote before on Epstein links to espionage, including but not limited to an Israeli Mossad angle. The former US Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta is on the record saying that Epstein “belonged to intelligence”, and thus was “above his pay grade” and should be left “alone”, despite all the serious accusations.

It is a well known fact that the billionaire’s properties were rigged with cameras, making blackmail the most obvious scenario. Sexually exploiting teenage minors is nasty enough but the exploitation of actual prepubescent children would bring far greater “value” in terms of kompromat and weaponizable damage, which leaves one wondering what else could be in the Epstein files (the same ones American officials now claim to have nothing).

American abuse of minors, espionage, blackmail: none of this would be a new phenomenon. The United States’ political machinery has long thrived on kompromat, a tactic refined during the Cold War when intelligence agencies exploited sexual vices to manipulate leaders and recruit operatives. The CIA’s so-called “brothels,” laced with LSD for blackmail, are a well-documented example taken from the infamous MKULTRA program.

This program also involved the torture and sexual abuse of children, among other human rights violations including clandestine scientific experiments with even newborns. In the Cold War years, the US government went so far as to feed radioactive oatmeal to disabled American school children (thus used as guinea pigs) as part of Atomic Energy Commission experiments. The point is that the US national security apparatus has a history of treating children as abusable and dischargeable objects for various purposes.

One may recall also that former US President Barack Obama was going to release information and even photos pertaining to torture conducted by the US regime at the Abu Ghraib and Bagram prison. Obama too changed his mind, as one does and the matter was closed. At the time, General Antonio Taguba confirmed (see page 17) the existence of unreleased images and videos showing sexual torture, including the rape of a boy by a US contractor. No wonder such material has never been released, but one still may wonder: why would authorities film or photograph such state crimes, thereby producing what is by definition child pornography?

It’s long been known that the American intelligence apparatus has engaged in illicit operations for its black budget, including organized crime sectors such as drug trafficking, to the point of creating the crack addiction problem in the US. Historian Alfred W. McCoy’s “The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia” and former diplomat Peter Dale Scott’s works — such as “Cocaine Politics” — offer thorough documentation of part of this history.

Well, it just so happens that child pornography is a multi-billionaire industry and is part of the crime landscape. There is no reason to assume that the American “deep state” would have any qualms in taking part in such things. We are talking, after all, about a complex that for the last half century has been promoting “regime-changes”, torture, assassinations, trafficking, death squads, terrorism, and neo-fascism in different parts of the world.

Consider this: in the 1980s, an investigation into the Finders — a cult-like group based in Washington, D.C. — raised alarms over child trafficking and pornography, and a CIA-linked cover-up (the group had CIA ties via front companies such as Future Enterprises). In 1987, police in Tallahassee, Florida, found six filthy, hungry children aged 3 to 10 in a van with Finders members, along with videotapes, a computer, and urine-soaked bedding. Some children showed signs of sexual abuse.

Authorities later uncovered passports to sensitive places like North Korea and North Vietnam, large sums of money, and photos of chained children. Notably, Isabelle Pettie, wife of the group’s leader Marion Pettie, was a confirmed CIA employee, and their son worked for Air America, a CIA front tied to drug trafficking. A 1987 D.C. Police Intelligence report marked “Confidential” stated the case was “treading on the toes” of the CIA and had become a “CIA internal matter.” The suspects were released and the children returned to their guardians — charges were dropped.

Similar cases abound to this day, but are usually dismissed by the American media as “conspiracy theories”, unless it is convenient to weaponize them for electoral or political purposes (as is the case now with Epstein and Trump). To sum it up, releasing the Epstein files would be a good first step, but it’s merely the tip of a deeply disturbing iceberg.

By Gordon Hahn, Website, 8/5/25

I noted at the advent of his first term that Mr. Trump would be good for US domestic politics, especially the economy but bad for foreign policy and that is bearing out again in this second term. It is one thing for a political leader to loosely play with language that circles around making a nuclear threat, as Russian Security Council Deputy Head and former Russian President Dmitrii Medvedev has done again recently in a public social net spat with US President Donald Trump. But it is quite another to play global chess with the repositioning of nuclear forces to actually threaten another country, especially another nuclear power of equal if not superior nuclear weapons strength. No matter, that is precisely what President Trump has been doing of late. Not even the clueless, corrupt, and strategically incompetent Biden and Obama administrations made such a foolish move.

Trump responded to Medvedev’s verbal assault by making a material nuclear threat against Russia. He announced he had redeployed to US nuclear submarines closer to Russia – an act of open nuclear threat and intimidation. 

But that is not even the whole story. Trump’s nuclear sabre-rattling relates to much more than ‘merely‘ forward deploying two nuclear submarines a spart of a self-declared threatening of Moscow. 

In recent weeks, Trump has ordered the deployment of additional American nuclear weapons to Europe for the first time since Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations concluded treaties leading to massive cuts in Soviet and American strategic, intermediate, short-range, and tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. In other words, he has negated the results of years of arms control efforts and decades of nuclear arms comity with Moscow. As Larry Johnson has noted, the Trump administration has deployed some 100-150 B61-12 tactical nuclear gravity bombs to six bases in five NATO countries: RAF Lakenheath (United Kingdom); Kleine Brogel Air Base (Belgium); Büchel Air Base (Germany); Aviano and Ghedi Air Bases (Italy); Volkel Air Base (Netherlands), and Incirlik Air Base (Turkey) (https://open.substack.com/pub/larrycjohnson/p/trump-escalates-nuclear-threat-to?r=1qt5jg&utm_medium=ios).

All this comes on the background of a NATO(US)-Russia Ukrainian War and an imminent Russian-American nuclear arms race, given the expiration of the New START nuclear arms treaty coming in seven months, not to mention Trump’s apparent last ditch attempt to revive Russian-Ukrainian negotiations and transition to normal US-Russian relations with his roaming negotiator Steven Witkoff’s visit to Moscow this week. Perhaps this is Trump’s provocative way of opening up discussions on renewing or replacing the expiring New START (https://gordonhahn.com/2025/05/23/a-new-new-start-putin-sees-trump-administration-as-a-window-of-opportunity-for-strategic-arms-control/).

Not surprisingly, except perhaps to Trump and his neocon provocateurs, Moscow responded by removing its self-imposed moratorium on forward deploying forward short and medium-range nuclear missiles. This might be a bit of a ruse for now, since in June 2023 Russia deployed nuclear missiles to Belarus, as NATO persisted in conducting the Ukrainian War it clearly provoked and in April 2022 blocked prevention of. Mr. Trump’s deployment of tactical nukes to Europe could be seen as a response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s earlier nuclear deployments to Belarus (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/belarus-has-started-taking-delivery-russian-tactical-nuclear-weapons-president-2023-06-14/). But the nuclear submarine redeployment cannot be so viewed, and the redeployment of tactical nukes to Europe comes too long after the Russian deployment to Belarus to be convincing as such.

The Western imperative of escalation in and around Ukraine after provoking the war by way of battlefield and geostrategic escalations in Ukraine is clear and undeniable. From blocking the April 2022 Istanbul peace agreement to providing offensive rather than just defensive weapons, from first providing Ukraine with tanks and armoured personnel carriers, then artillery systems, then fighter jets, mid-range missiles, and soon perhaps longer-range ones, the West has taken every opportunity to escalate the war rather than negotiate an end to it. 

The endgame of Western persistence in escalating in order to level a ‘strategic defeat against Russia‘. This can be seen in the US, NOT UKRAINIAN, initiative to send HIMARS missiles to Kiev. For it was not Ukraine that requested the supply of HIMARS to Kiev, but rather it was American generals who did. As the New York Times reported: “Generals Cavoli and Donahue soon proposed a far bigger leap — providing High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, known as HIMARS.” “When the generals requested HIMARS, one official recalled, the moment felt like ‘standing on that line, wondering, if you take a step forward, is World War III going to break out?’” (https://archive.is/Fdwq3). This also can be seen in the proposal by some Biden-era US officials, according to the New York Times, to ‚return‘ nuclear weapons to Ukraine (www.nytimes.com/2024/11/21/us/politics/trump-russia-ukraine-war.html). This would end either in a pre-emptive Russian nuclear strike or massive conventional one, using the likes of Oreshkin missiles, that would finish off the process of Ukraine‘s Second Great Ruin. This is suicidal brinksmanship and over what? NATO’s expansion to Ukraine.

Mr. Trump is returning to this stupid, futile, and dangerous Biden-era escalation policy, even as he ostensibly pursues a Ukrainian peace process. But Trump’s innovation is to escalate at the nuclear level, threatening a security-vigilant Moscow with a nuclear first strike in eastern Ukraine or the homeland proper. Continuing this petulant foolishness, as I have noted repeatedly in the course of the decade-long Ukrainian crisis, cannot end well.

***

Putin Subtly Puts the US on Notice… Russia is Locked and Loaded

By Larry Johnson, Substack, 8/5/25

Following two months of provocations and threats from the United States, Vladimir Putin announced a major policy change regarding intermediate-range missiles that pushes the world to the brink of nuclear war. While the mainstream media has largely ignored Russia’s announcement that it would no longer abide by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), a few podcasters — e.g., Danny Davis and Alexander Mercouris — recognized both the importance and danger inherent in this decision and discussed this at length during their respective shows. This is not Russia going rogue. Putin’s decision was a unambiguous response to a series of foolish and reckless actions by the United States since June 1st of this year.

The Spiderweb attack on Russia’s strategic bomber force on June 1st, using drones deployed from hidden compartments in semi-trucks, was a dangerous provocation, although little damage was inflicted. Twelve days later, Israel launched a decapitation attack on Iran — that too thankfully failed — using the same drove tactic employed in Russia just weeks earlier. In mid-July the Russians listened in shock to General Christopher Donahue, Commander of US European Command (USEUCOM) describe how NATO has tested plans to quickly overrun and capture Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave. At the same time, Trump re-deployed B61-12 nuclear gravity bombs to at least six airfields in Europe, including the UK’s Lakenfield. Lastly, Trump brashly announced the deployment of two nuclear submarines with the specific mission of being in position to strike Russia. [NOTE: This was most likely a symbolic statement because submarines with that mission were already on station.]

The Trump administration also has announced that it will begin deploying intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) and other long-range fire capabilities in Europe starting in 2026, with Germany as the initial host country for these systems. This deployment specifically includes advanced missile systems such as the Typhoon and Dark Eagle, which have been referenced in recent official communications and news reports. The Typhon Missile System (Mid-Range Capability) is a mobile, ground-launched system that fires multiple missile types (not a missile itself, but a multi-missile platform). It can fire the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, which has a range of 1,500–2,500 km, or the SM-6, which has a range of 320 km. The Dark Eagle is a Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon aka LRHW, with a range of 2,775 km. The Dark Eagle hypersonic missile, after several failed attempts from 2021–2023, has been successfully tested. The system achieved its first successful end-to-end flight test in June 2024, followed by a second successful test in December 2024.

It is worth reviewing the INF Treaty that Donald Trump cancelled in 2018:

Major Points of the INF Treaty

1. Elimination of Intermediate- and Shorter-Range Missiles:

-The treaty required the US and Soviet Union to eliminate all ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (approximately 300–3,400 miles), including both nuclear and conventional variants.

-Intermediate-range (1,000–5,500 km) and shorter-range (500–1,000 km) missiles were targeted, covering systems like the US Pershing II and Soviet SS-20 Saber.

-By June 1, 1991, both parties were to complete the destruction of these missiles and their launchers, resulting in the elimination of 2,692 missiles (1,846 Soviet, 846 U.S.).

2. Prohibition on Production and Testing:

-The treaty banned the production, flight-testing, or possession of ground-launched intermediate- and shorter-range missiles after the elimination deadline.

-This applied to both nuclear and conventional missiles within the specified range, ensuring no new systems could replace those destroyed.

3. Scope and Exclusions:

-The treaty covered ground-launched missiles only, excluding air-launched and sea-launched systems (e.g., submarine- or ship-based missiles like the US Tomahawk).

-It applied to missiles regardless of warhead type (nuclear or conventional), making it comprehensive within its range category.

-Support structures, such as launchers and associated equipment, were also to be destroyed or rendered unusable.

4. Verification and Inspection:

-The treaty established a robust verification regime, including on-site inspections, data exchanges, and continuous monitoring of missile production facilities to ensure compliance.

-A Special Verification Commission was created to resolve compliance disputes, with inspections continuing for 13 years after 1991 (until 2001).

-Both sides provided detailed inventories of their missile systems and destruction sites.

5. Indefinite Duration:

-The treaty was of unlimited duration, meaning it remained in force until a party withdrew (as the US did in 2019, citing Russian non-compliance with the 9M729 missile).

-Either party could withdraw with six months’ notice if they believed their supreme interests were jeopardized.

6. Global Application:

-The treaty prohibited deploying covered missiles anywhere in the world, not just in Europe, addressing concerns about Soviet SS-20s targeting Asia and US Pershing IIs in Europe.

-It applied to missiles stationed in allied territories (e.g., US missiles in NATO countries, Soviet missiles in Warsaw Pact states).

That treaty has prevented nuclear war in Europe for 37 years. Now, with Trump’s nuclear sabre rattling, Putin has put Trump on notice… Any IRBMs introduced to Europe will be destroyed. When that happens — mind you, I don’t say “if” — we will be at the very threshold of a nuclear nightmare. I don’t think Trump will get a Nobel Peace Prize out of this.

As to whether arrests will actually occur…I’ll believe it when I see it. – Natylie

By Jeff Childers, Substack, 8/5/25

Jeff Childers is an attorney and conservative commentator.

Yesterday (August 4), CNN ran a massively encouraging story headlined, “Attorney General Bondi orders prosecutors to start grand jury probe into Obama officials over Russia investigation.”. Also yesterday, John Solomon’s Just the News ran a similar breaking story headlined, “Bondi orders evidence sent to grand jury for Russia collusion hoax.”

CLIP: JTN’s John Solomon says DOJ will empanel grand jury in Florida to begin RussiaGate indictments (0:34).

According to Just The News, “multiple sources” have said Attorney General Pam Bondi has now ordered evidence from the Russia collusion hoax to be sent to a federal grand jury, “probably” in Florida. Where the Mar-a-Lago raid occurred. CNN said, “a source familiar with the matter” had told them.

When the Department of Justice sends evidence to a grand jury, it’s not for show—it’s a formal step toward criminal charges. Grand juries aren’t investigative committees or cable news panels. They’re made up of everyday citizens who review evidence in secret and decide whether there’s enough to indict. And they almost always do, leading to that old saw about ham sandwiches.

The grand jury standard is low. It doesn’t require proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; it’s just “probable cause.” So when Bondi sends the RussiaGate evidence to a grand jury, it’s a sign that indictments are not just possible. They are likely. If true, this isn’t just a narrative-management exercise anymore. It’s a real legal proceeding with bloodstained claws.

Indictments precede arrests and prosecution. Once a grand jury returns an indictment, the DOJ typically issues a warrant, and unless the charges are sealed for tactical reasons, the next step is an arrest. In federal cases, this process is usually swift and serious: U.S. Marshals or federal agents either pick the person up or notify them to surrender. An indictment means the government believes it can prove its case in court, and it isn’t just sending a message—it’s preparing to put someone in handcuffs.

Grand juries are sequestered and conducted in secret. It’s entirely possible that this grand jury is already empaneled and hearing evidence, and we wouldn’t know it. If Bondi’s team is leaking about the existence of the grand jury, then it seems more likely the grand jury was empaneled weeks or months ago, quietly receiving documents, hearing testimony, and is getting ready to hand down charges.

It’s worth repeating: you don’t leak the existence of a grand jury unless you’re nearly finished. First, because it alerts the enemy. The moment a grand jury becomes public knowledge, anyone with something to lose starts looking for the jurors, to influence, intimidate, or discredit them. Second, because if the grand jury hears your case and refuses to indict, you look like a moron. In other words, you look both politically motivated and legally incompetent.

Prosecutors never voluntarily take that risk unless they’re confident in what’s coming next. Assuming the leaks came from Bondi’s DOJ —and that seems almost self-evident— they know what they’re doing.

In other words, based on what we can already see —the disclosures, the criminal referrals, the grand jury order, the sudden public confirmation— we could be getting very close to high-profile arrests. Possibly within days. And based on the rapid acceleration of events over the past two weeks, it could conceivably happen this week.

The Hunt for Red August appears to be underway.

Russia Matters, 8/8/25

1. Following talks between Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and Vladimir Putin this week U.S. and Russian officials are working toward an agreement on Ukrainian territories for a planned summit between the U.S. and Russian leaders that could occur as early as the next week, according to Bloomberg. The agreement aims essentially to freeze the war, cementing Putin’s land gains,  and pave the way for a ceasefire and technical talks on a definitive peace settlement, “people familiar with the matter” told this news agency. Under the terms of the deal, Russia would halt its offensive in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine along the current battlelines. In exchange Putin is demanding that Ukraine cede entire Donbas to Russia as well as Crimea in what would require Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to order a withdrawal of troops from parts of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions still held by Kyiv, according to the agency. Speaking in the late afternoon of Aug. 8, Trump confirmed that the deal would involve territorial concessions. Trump said discussions were under way to get “some” land back as well as “some swapping of territories to the betterment of both,” according to Financial Times. He said the conflict could be resolved “very soon.” While having lost 99% of the Luhansk Oblast, with only 103 square miles remaining under their control in that province, Ukrainian forces continued to control some 25% of the Donetsk Oblast (2,509 square miles or 6,500 square kilometers), according to ISW’s latest estimates.¹ Forcing Ukrainian armed forces to quickly cede more than 2,600 square miles of territory they still control in Donbas, which comprises the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, without putting up a fight could be a tall order. A voluntary surrender of these territories by Ukrainians would require concessions on other issues by Russia, but, according to the Bloomberg story, it remains unclear if Moscow is prepared to give up any land that it currently occupies.*
2. In the period of July 8–Aug. 5, 2025, Russian forces gained 226 square miles of Ukrainian territory, which is more than the 190 square miles gained by Russia in the period of June 10–July 8, 2025. However, if one were to compare shorter periods, such as the past week to the preceding week, then such a comparison would reveal that Russia’s weekly gains declined. Russia gained 31 square miles of Ukrainian territory (about 1½ Manhattan islands) over the past week (July 29–Aug. 5, 2025)—slowing to just one third the rate of the previous week’s (July 22–29, 2025) gain of 105 square miles, according to the Aug. 6, 2025, issue of the Russia-Ukraine War Report Card .   
3. Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi is warning that Russia is accelerating troop mobilization, aiming to form 10 new divisions by year’s end and adding about 9,000 troops monthly—despite suffering over 33,200 losses in July, Kyiv Independent reported. Syrskyi said Ukraine has no other option but to ramp up its own mobilization, improve training and strengthen drone capabilities to prevent Russia from achieving its objectives. Meanwhile, the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces has assured Putin that the Ukrainian front will crumble in two or three months, one source close to Russian government told Reuters.
4. More than three years into the war, Ukrainians’ support for continuing the fight against Russia until victory is “collapsing,” according to Gallup’s interpretation of its latest poll on the subject. Indeed, the share of those who think Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins plummeted from 73% in 2022 to 24% in 2025, which represents a decline of more than 67%, according to this international pollster. In the meantime, the share of Ukrainians who think Ukraine should seek to negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible went from 22% to 69%, exceeding that of Russians (63%) who would like to see a negotiated end to the fighting.²
5. The Russian Finance Ministry said this week that the country’s budget deficit has reached 4.88 trillion rubles ($61.1 billion) between January and July, or 2.2% of GDP, according to The Moscow Times. That is well above the 3.8 trillion rubles planned for all of 2025, according to this newspaper. The ministry blamed weaker oil and gas revenues—down nearly 19% year-on-year—and “advance financing” of expenses early in the year, the newspaper reported. Indeed, Russia’s combined oil and gas revenue totaled 787.3 billion rubles in July, down by 27%, according to the Bloomberg. Analysts, however, told MT that the real driver of the budget deficit is runaway spending.

Good grief, were our government officials and military representatives this unprofessional during the Cold War? This sounds like some cringey comedic movie. – Natylie

By David Axe & Matthew Gault, Substack, 7/21/25

David Axe is a journalist and filmmaker in South Carolina.

For five days in mid-July 2013, a delegation of the Pentagon’s top nuclear officials led by U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Michael Carey traveled to Moscow to meet its counterparts in the Russian nuke force.

It was a make-nice involving the world’s biggest atomic powers, which for decades have possessed, and held back, the power to obliterate each other and the rest of the world in mere minutes.

And it came during what was, in retrospect, the last period of potentially fruitful interactions between the Americans and Russians, as Russia would invade Ukraine just seven months later.

Carey’s meeting was, in other words, a big freaking deal.

But to Carey—at the time the head of the 20th Air Force, America’s main nuclear ICBM strike force, with 9,600 airmen and 450 continent-blasting Minuteman missiles—it was a chance to engage in an epic, ego-fueled, taxpayer-funded bender.

Over the course of the five days, Carey allegedly guzzled around 50 drinks, hit on four different women—including three he later claimed might be Russian agents—and managed to repeatedly offend his Russian military hosts.

After an investigation, Carey was removed from command and assigned as a special assistant to the commander of the Air Force’s Space Command—a position with no real power. He retired in 2014 after doing his damnedest to wreck relations between the world’s top atomic powers while in the pursuit of booze and babes.

Carey’s marathon international insult was documented in a hilarious official report obtained by The Washington Post. Let’s count the drinks that disarmed the man once in charge of America’s nuclear arsenal.

Day 1: 2 glasses of wine, at least 2 beers

Weather delayed Carey’s trip from his headquarters in Wyoming to Washington, D.C. for onward travel to Moscow. He had only a few hours to rest in a local hotel before meeting his five-person delegation at Dulles airport on July 14.

Carey’s crew included representatives from the Pentagon’s joint staff, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s office, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the organization in charge of eliminating the world’s weapons of mass destruction.

Despite the esteemed company, Carey—apparently exhausted before even stepping onto the plane—was on his worst behavior. On the first leg of the flight he drank two glasses of wine and, delayed again in Zurich, chased the wine with at least two beers.

According to a witness, the general was “visibly agitated about the long delay at Zurich, he appeared drunk and, in the public area, talked loudly about the importance of his position as commander of the only operational nuclear force in the world and that he saves the world from war every day.”

But Carey was just pre-gaming before the big binge.

Day 2: at least 4 beers plus 2 or more other drinks

The delegation checked into a Moscow Marriott the evening of July 15. First order of business was a team meeting to discuss the trip itinerary, including two days of meetings with Russian nuclear troops. At the meeting, Carey drank several beers … and began mouthing off.

“Again, he started in on the very loud discussions about being in charge of the only operationally deployed force and saving the world,” said a delegation member. Carey complained that his airmen had the worst morale in the Air Force—and blamed his superiors for “not helping out.”

The gripe did not include any classified information. But the witness described it as “not really something I was comfortable with you know, being part of in a Russian hotel in the middle of Moscow.”

Carey, who by this point had apparently slept only fitfully for several days running, went to the hotel lobby with one of his teammates, grabbed another beer and bought a cigar from a woman vendor. The male teammate proposed checking out a rooftop bar at the Ritz Carlton—a neighboring hotel—the next day.

But Carey suggested they go that night, and his colleague agreed.

At the rooftop bar, Carey had at least two more drinks. He and the other man met two young women who claimed to be British travel agents. The four revelers closed down the bar then wandered to the La Cantina Mexican restaurant, but it was shuttered for the night. Carey’s teammate mentioned that the Americans might go back to the Mexican joint the next day—and the girls should meet them there.

On return to America, Carey would voluntarily turn in the girls’ business cards to Air Force investigators, along with the cigar vendor’s card. The general would claim that the women’s behavior was fishy, and imply they might have been Russian agents. But Carey’s suspicion did not stop him from continuing to drink with the ladies in Moscow.

Day 3: 9 vodka shots, a bottle of vodka & a bar crawl

July 16 was the first day of meetings with Russian troops. And boy howdy was it a boozy one. Carey was 45 minutes late meeting the rest of the team, plus some Russian military guides, waiting in the Marriott lobby.

The Russians had arranged a demonstration by nuclear-force trainees and were worried the Americans might miss it.

Carey had gotten just few hours of sleep and his eyes were bloodshot. He snoozed on the van ride to the Russian base but was still not at his best during the morning’s briefings. Claiming he could not understand the Russians’ military interpreter—described as an “attractive” young woman—Carey told one of his Russian-speaking teammates to take over the translating.

The Russians “were insulted … they were unhappy,” a witness said.

Some Russian trainees—apparently part of the Kremlin’s nuclear security force—showed off their fighting, first aid and vehicle maintenance skills. Addressing the Americans, Carey derided the demonstration as “sophomoric.”

Lunch was served in a tent near the training range. There were nine vodka toasts. Some of the Russians, including a general, sipped water instead. The Russian general, for one, said he needed to be sober since he was in charge. In an ill-conceived attempt to ape the Russians’ toasting conventions, Carey singled out the woman linguist he had previously insulted, raised his glass to her and called her “beautiful.”

Carey was drunk, according to the other Americans. He ran his mouth about the Syrian war — over which Washington and Moscow have serious disagreements—and also about National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, who was granted asylum in Russia.

One witness reported that “at some point he announced that the reason he had been late [that] morning was that he had met two hot women at the bar the night before.” The Russians were less than thrilled about this and “made it very clear we had to be on time the next day.”

That afternoon and evening, the Americans visited a monastery and then Red Square. There was more drinking in the van. At the monastery, Carey insulted the tour guide, a woman. “At one point he tried to give her a fist bump. She had no idea what he was trying to do,” one American said.

Carey wandered away from the main group. That evening, the nearly incapacitated general couldn’t keep up with his teammates in Red Square and sat alone “pouting and sulking.” He told the others he wanted to bail on the second day of meetings.

But that night, he was apparently feeling better. He decided the delegation would go to La Cantina, the Mexican restaurant. There was a Beatles cover band he wanted to see, he said. At La Cantina, he drank more and kept pressuring the band to let him play guitar or sing with them.

The band declined.

The two, ahem, “British” women showed up. One kissed Carey on the cheek and the general joined them at their table, where he told them about his job and the trip. Carey danced with one of the girls. “It was a fast dance,” according to a witness.

The general, two other Americans and the girls closed down the Mexican joint and hit a couple more bars. While stumbling back from the night of drinking, Carey opened up to one of his colleagues, again talking about not wanting to attend the next day’s proceedings.

But his drinking buddy convinced him he had to go, and Carey resolved to do his best. He didn’t get to bed until around 3:00, leaving him just four hours to sleep. By this point, Carey had apparently thrown back between 20 and 30 drinks since leaving his headquarters three days earlier.

Days 4 & 5: 25 vodka shots, cognac & 3 glasses of wine

Despite his late-night booze-inspired resolution to set a good example, on the morning of July 17, Carey appeared to be having a hard time concentrating. He was 15 minutes late to the hotel lobby, looking exhausted, his eyes again bloodshot. As before, he slept through the car ride.

The demonstrations that morning were much like those the previous day. Carey was bored. And again he had problems with the Russian linguist, loudly correcting her translations in a crowded room, insulting her and embarrassing himself. The Russians were upset, but the translator—taking the high road—smoothed it over.

Carey then proceeded to embarrass himself further by attempting a lame joke with another translator. In a misguided attempt at levity, Carey proceeded to ask the man, “Can you hear me now?” Over and over again, invoking the then decade-old Verizon ad campaign.

The translator didn’t get it. Neither did the Russian brass Carey was there to make nice with. “The Russians were looking at him like are you crazy?” one witness said.

Then the drinking began.

At lunch that day, the number of toasts went up from the previous day’s nine to 25. According to witnesses, Carey participated in all of them. He even had a little wine on the side. During the meal, Carey’s face and eyes reddened and his speech slurred. He interrupted some of the toasts, irritating his Russian hosts.

He was wrecked.

“That’s the deal when you go to a Russian toasting event—you’re into the toasts,” Carey told an investigator. “The nice thing is that the toasting glasses are not full ounce glasses.”

But the glasses were full enough to get the general drunk, twice.

On the ride back to the hotel Carey disco-napped in the car but sprang to life once the group reached the front doors. He posted up in the hotel lounge and finished off a bottle of cognac left over from the day’s proceedings. Then he switched to wine.

Carey wanted to pull an all-nighter before flying home, in order to “get his body clock back in sync,” he said. Most of his associates fled. One delegate said he “didn’t want to end up in another situation like the night before.”

Some of the delegation stayed up with him and they chatted all night with the cigar lady about science and technology. In the morning, Carey and his delegation flew home. No further incidents were reported.

When they landed, someone complained. The investigation into Carey’s conduct started on July 30. The general declined to answer many questions and responded vaguely to others. “Carey’s account of events varied greatly at times from those of the other U.S. members on the trip,” an interviewer wrote.

But the rest of the American delegation recalled the five-day bender with total clarity. It’s clear, reading the investigators’ report, that every other person on the trip told the same story.

That Carey acted like a total frat boy.

Worse, the general apparently realized while in Moscow that the supposedly British women he cavorted with two nights in a row posed a security risk—but that didn’t stop him from drinking and flirting.

“It just seemed kind of peculiar that we saw them one night and then saw them again later while we were there and for people who are in business to be kinda conveniently in the same place where we’re at, it seemed odd to me,” Carey told an investigator.

Same thing with the cigar vendor. “She was asking questions about physics and optics and I was like, dude, this doesn’t normally happen. … A tobacco story lady talking about physics in the wee hours of the morning doesn’t make whole lot of sense.”

What also doesn’t make sense is how the man then in charge of some of the deadliest weapons in human history decided that a diplomatic mission to a rival superpower was a fine time to get shitfaced, chase sketchy women and insult the very people he was sent to impress.