TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @AmbJohnBolton
reSee.it AI Summary
John Bolton stated that Russia's goal remains to incorporate Ukraine into a new Russian Empire, demanding territory from Ukraine, including parts of Donetsk. He believes President Zelensky will not comply and doubts the effectiveness of ongoing talks, suggesting they are driven by Trump's desire for a Nobel Peace Prize. In response, another user made a lighthearted comment, asking if someone named Johnny could join the conversation.
@AmbJohnBolton - John Bolton
Russia has not changed its goal: drag Ukraine into a new Russian Empire. Moscow has demanded that Ukraine cede territory it already holds and the remainder of Donetsk, which it has been unable to conquer. Zelensky will never do so. Meanwhile, meetings will continue because Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize, but I don't see these talks making any progress. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/20/nx-s1-5507029/john-bolton-discusses-what-security-guarantees-for-ukraine-might-look-like
@DocEllis17 - Ellis D.
@AmbJohnBolton Can Johnny come out and play? https://t.co/kxXjGqsHyf
@AmbJohnBolton - John Bolton
Putin's KGB training and flattery campaign is working Trump over, as seen by Trump's statement recently about how Ukraine shouldn't have taken the war on. It's important to remember: Ukraine didn't take anything on, they were invaded. https://t.co/MjTbBB1WCZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Bolton says there have been positive developments; 'Trump rejected the idea of a ceasefire because I think a ceasefire is very dangerous for Ukraine.' A ceasefire could harden lines into a de facto boundary. 'As long as Europe and The United States are providing Ukraine with the necessary resources, that fighting while negotiating is Ukraine's best interest.' He adds Russia 'needs a ceasefire' given their damage. On security guarantees, he questions what 'air support' would mean: would it include ground troops, bombers, or transport? 'Nothing's agreed to until everything's agreed to.' Putin demands: 'the remaining 30% of the Donetsk oblast province that we don't yet control.' Article Five: 'Attack on one shall be considered an attack on all' and 'such action as it deems necessary,' including non-military measures. Trump's remark: 'for me' points to 'the two most important words' and 'Let me help you get the Nobel Peace Prize.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: John Bolton right now, though, the former national security adviser to President Trump in his first term, and Ambassador Bolton joins us. So we've been asking these questions. Always good to have you on, Ambassador Bolton, Kelly Gottsut about the what's next. So now that we have a second after Friday and after yesterday,
Speaker 1: what would you say?
Speaker 0: How do you think Trump's handled the last week in trying to put this whole thing together?
Speaker 1: Well, I think there have been some positive developments. I think it's important that Trump rejected the idea of a ceasefire because I think a ceasefire is very dangerous for Ukraine. If you freeze the battle lines and that becomes where the ceasefire is administered and then negotiations begin in Geneva or Vienna and drag on and drag on, whether you call it a ceasefire or a truce, whatever you wanna call it, that can harden that line into a de facto boundary. That's what happened in beginning in Cyprus in 1964. It's what happened in Korea in 1953.
I think as long as Europe and The United States are providing Ukraine with the necessary resources, that fighting while negotiating is Ukraine's is in Ukraine's best interest. I think it's Russia that needs a ceasefire, given the economic and and military damage they've suffered. We'll see how that turns out, but I thought that was the right approach.
Speaker 0: I thought of you when I heard that because you'd come on this show, I guess, was last week, and and I I had to do a double take at first, but then you explained it, and I understood your logic more about how a ceasefire wouldn't be necessarily in the Ukrainian interest even though Europeans and and many more were at the time pushing it and still are, very aggressively. Now if there's no ceasefire, you're trying to go straight to a big peace agreement, which is the what the president was talking about yesterday. But in order to have a conversation that gets you there, you have to have one about the security guarantees. Right? No boots on the ground, American boots at least is what the president's saying, maybe air support.
So if that's the case, can the Europeans really pick this up and guarantee Ukraine's security?
Speaker 1: Well, you have you have to talk about other issues too, like how much territory does Russia get and how much does Ukraine get. But, I think on the security guarantee side, we're seeing what America might do starting to be sliced away like watermelon. So, okay, no no boots on the ground. But the president used the phrase air support.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. But what does that mean exactly? So if if British and French combat troops on the ground run into trouble because the Russians have violated the ceasefire, Does our air support include providing a 10 warthogs for close air support to those combat arms forces on the ground in trouble? Does it include b 52 and b two bombers to strike at strategic Russian targets behind the front lines to relieve the pressure on the Brits and the French? Does it include fighter bombers like the f 16 and f 18?
Is that what he's talking about? So if that's if that's what he's talking about, let's be clear. He's willing to risk American air service members in combat, but not not American combat arms. Or is he talking about American transport capabilities? Two very different things and could could be dispositive in whether any security guarantee means anything.
It's not the words on the piece of paper. It's whether the Russians are deterred because of that force, if that's what they're talking about.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. That's a good and maybe we'll get some clarification from the president over the next few days about that or someone else at the White House to go. You know, it's go back to your earlier point on the on the order this thing goes. My thinking was just that you couldn't have those conversations you alluded to about land swapping and who gets what without the security guarantees.
But do do you think we can?
Speaker 1: Well, number one, in any negotiation, nothing's agreed to until everything's agreed to. I think the moving party here is Putin, who said, I believe, to Trump sometime on Friday or in one of their conversations, this isn't going anywhere unless I get the remaining 30% of the Donetsk oblast province that we don't yet control. That's what Putin wants. That's his demand. You can talk about everything else, but somebody has to decide whether Ukraine's prepared to give that up.
I I'm not sure Zelensky or any Ukrainian leader can give that up and survive politically. We'll see. Then then, you know, security guarantees, I think, have to be resources, not words on a piece of paper. Take Article five. People say, well, that's the toughest guarantee there is.
It's the toughest guarantee there is because of American force. And, you know, I always think it's nice to read things when you talk about them. Article five says that an attack on one shall be considered an attack on all. Mhmm. And each party will provide to the party attack using its right of individual and collective self defense under article 51 of the UN Charter.
And this is what it says. It will provide, and I'm quoting now, each party such action as it deems necessary. Doesn't say you will fight to defend the other party. It says including military force, but making it clear it's not required. It's permissible.
Such action as it deems necessary. Just think about what those words mean.
Speaker 0: And what might they mean or how would it apply? Because you were very specific, and that is helpful to talk about because they're saying now an Article five like guarantee in this particular situation. And what what should we be thinking about then?
Speaker 1: Right. Well, such action as it deems necessary could include a country writing a letter saying, we're very distressed to hear that you've been attacked, and we wish you all the best. Right. And by the way, do let us know how it turns out. That's what they deem necessary.
Speaker 0: Right. So that's something because, usually, we just focus on the first part. You're right. Attack on one is attack on all, and you have to be there to have their back, and there could be a different interpretation. Last thing.
What about this interpretation that apparently Trump has about he's he's the guy that can get a deal done? It's been called a hot mic moment, I guess. That's one way of saying it. At the White House yesterday. We was talking to president Macron about Putin, maybe wanna make a deal for him.
Listen.
Speaker 2: You set up a trial at you. I'm gonna do
Speaker 0: the thing. Where do you
Speaker 2: want to fix? Thank you. You. Wants to make a deal. You understand that as crazy as it sounds.
Just sit down. Sit down, everybody.
Speaker 0: Everybody sits down. So he wants to make a deal for me as crazy as it sounds is what, Trump said there. Thoughts?
Speaker 1: Well, the two most important words are for me. To Trump, the two most important words are for me. And this is evidence of Putin and his KGB training working working on Trump. Donald, you've done more than any anybody else to bring peace here. You're completely right.
If you had been president, there'd never been a war. Let let me help you get the Nobel Peace Prize. I'll I'll get this for you. All I want is the rest of the Donbas.
Speaker 0: Right. And you think it's working?
Speaker 1: I think it's working so far. Yeah. I mean, today, again, Trump, said that it was basically Ukraine that had started the war. He shouldn't have taken this on. Russia's so much bigger than Ukraine.
Ukraine didn't take anything on. They were invaded.
Speaker 0: Right. Now we've we've known that and talked and covered that. Ambassador Bolton, thank you as always. We'll talk to you again soon, hopefully. Ambassador John Bolton.
@AmbJohnBolton - John Bolton
Today's verdict is a fire-bell in the night. The Republican Party now has one last chance to change course, and not nominate a convicted felon for President.