TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @DavidSacks

Posted - November 8, 2024 at 4:46 AM

Saved - November 8, 2024 at 9:38 AM

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

Pompeo’s idea of a “Trump Peace Plan for Ukraine” is to give Zelensky a $500 BILLION shopping spree at the Pentagon to buy whatever weapons he wants. So Zelensky could obtain the Tomahawks he’s been asking for and strike Moscow. This is not a peace plan; it’s a way to start WW3. https://t.co/UxCTpy86Lb

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - July 22, 2024 at 4:40 AM

Saved - July 22, 2024 at 2:57 PM

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

“Nancy made clear that they could do this the easy way or the hard way.” What was the hard way? https://t.co/cAawqMq6I0

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - July 15, 2024 at 2:52 AM

Saved - July 15, 2024 at 4:21 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

The Washington Post named me and Elon Musk as businessmen spreading narratives about the assassination attempt on President Trump. I witnessed Trump's defiance and courage firsthand at the rally in Butler. Despite being shot, he raised his fist and urged us to fight. This is not a narrative, it is the truth. Trump risked everything for this country, and it is our duty to support him in November. Let's reject the lies and division spread by the media. #SupportTrump #NovemberVictory

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

I KNOW A HERO WHEN I SEE ONE The Washington Post names me along with @elonmusk as one of several businessmen who are using their “megaphones” to spread “narratives” about the assassination attempt on President Trump. I’m not sure what “narratives” they’re referring to, but I know what I saw, and I know what the crowd in Butler witnessed live. At it turns out, my father-in-law lives in Pennsylvania and he was at the rally on Saturday. When the shots rang out and Trump went down, he said pandemonium broke out around him. Everyone feared the worst. But then Trump rose. Covered in his own blood, resisting the secret service’s efforts to whisk him away to safety, Trump raised his fist defiantly, and the crowd could see him say: “Fight. Fight. Fight.” Immediately the fear of the crowd dissipated, the chaotic uncertainty lifted, and it was replaced with steely resolve. The crowd responded back as one: “USA, USA, USA!” This is not a “narrative.” It is the truth. Trump stood defiant in the face of an assassin’s bullet. There is no way to fake courage like that. It was more important for Trump to let the crowd know that he was unbowed and unbroken than to be taken to safety. Donald Trump has already been in the fight of his life for months, as vindictive Democrats seek to imprison him, but on this day he came within inches of losing it. He has risked everything for this country. It is now up to us, the American people, to show him that he does not stand alone. Let us reject the lies, the hoaxes, the hate and the division that the media has spread about this brave man, and support his resounding victory in November.

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - February 17, 2024 at 10:09 PM

Saved - March 1, 2024 at 1:18 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

The war in Ukraine is built on lies about its progress, NATO's strength, and Ukraine's funding. The truth is that Ukraine is losing, NATO is being depleted, and money won't solve the ammunition shortage. Russia isn't suffering as many casualties, and Ukraine is running out of soldiers. Despite the majority's belief that US policy is foolish, the lies will prolong the war. More funds will be allocated, Russia will claim more territory, and Ukraine will suffer. Eventually, the Zelensky government will be overthrown, and the liars will claim they did their best. They will shift blame and move on to the next war. The lies are extensive, but they will succeed.

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

A WAR OF LIES The war in Ukraine is based on lies — lies about how it started, how it’s going, and how it will end. We are told that Ukraine is winning when in fact it is losing. We are told that the war makes NATO stronger when in fact it is depleting it. We are told that Ukraine’s biggest problem is a lack of funds from the U.S. Congress when in fact the West can’t produce enough ammunition — a problem that will take years to fix. We are told that Russia is suffering greater casualties when in fact Ukraine is running out of soldiers — another problem money can’t fix. We are told that the world is with us when in fact the Global Majority believes U.S. policy is the height of folly. We are told that there is no opportunity to make peace when in fact we have rejected multiple opportunities for a negotiated settlement. We are told that if Ukraine keeps fighting, it will improve its negotiating position when in fact the terms will only get much worse than what was already available and rejected. Nevertheless the lies will succeed in dragging out the war. Congress will appropriate more funds. Russia will take more territory. Ukraine will mobilize more young men and women to feed into the meat grinder. Discontent will mount. Eventually there will be a crisis in Kiev and the Zelensky government will be toppled. And then, when the war is finally lost, when the whole country lays in smoldering ruins on a funeral pyre of their own making, the liars will say “well we tried.” Having prevented any alternative, having smeared anyone who told the truth as puppets for the enemy, the liars will say “We did our best. We stood up to Putin.” In fact, they will claim, we would have succeeded but for the fifth column of Putin apologists who stabbed the Ukrainians in the back. Then, having shifted blame and patted themselves on the back, they will blithely move on to the next war, as they moved onto Ukraine after their disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq. The lies are comprehensive — but they will work.

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - February 18, 2024 at 1:26 AM

Saved - February 18, 2024 at 1:56 AM

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

Julian Assange should be freed. Here’s why: #FreeAssange https://t.co/BSLv9OEhvY

Video Transcript AI Summary

Julian Assange, a journalist, should not be extradited to the US for publishing classified documents leaked by Chelsea Manning. Governments hide actions, but journalists expose them for public scrutiny. Punishing Assange would undermine press freedom. Leaks are necessary for holding governments accountable. Assange's actions did not harm anyone, and he has already suffered greatly. Extraditing him would be excessive. The British high court should not send him to the US.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: My name is John Meersheimer, and I teach at the University of Chicago. My area of expertise is international relations. I'd like to say a few words today about the Julian Assange case. A determination will soon be made by the British high court on whether to extradite Assange to the United States where he has been indicted by the American government and will be put on trial. I am asking the court not to extradite him and instead to set him free. I believe this is a straightforward case. Let me explain. For starters, the case involves a wide variety of classified documents that Chelsea Manning, who was a government employee, leaked to Julian Assange, a journalist who ran WikiLeaks, a famous website that publishes classified and private documents that were not supposed to see the light of day. Manning was caught and punished because she was a government employee, and she broke the law by leaking material that was classified to Assange. But Assange is a journalist, and he did not break the law, as it is commonplace for journalists to publish classified information that is passed on to them by government insiders. If journalists in the United States were sent to jail for publishing classified material, the jails would be filled with many of America's most famous reporters from newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. But of course, that hardly ever happens. Simply put, newspapers publish classified material and hardly anybody ever goes to jail. Why is this the case? What is the reason for this situation? Governments of every type, and this includes liberal democracies like the United States and Britain, sometimes go to great lengths to hide their actions or their policies from public view, which makes it almost impossible for the public to evaluate and criticize their behavior. Given that governments sometimes act foolishly, even recklessly, this is not a good situation. Thus, a rich tradition has developed over time in the United States where insiders leak information about classified policies to journalists who publicize the information so that the public can evaluate it and push back hard against misguided policies. The most famous case that illustrates this phenomenon involves the famous Pentagon Papers, which were a multi volume study of the American decision to enter the war in Vietnam in the 1964, 65 period, and then escalate it in subsequent years. Daniel Ellsberg, who was an insider and had access to classified material, leaked the papers in 1971 to the New York Times, which subsequently published them. The story in those documents was starkly at odds with what the Johnson administration had been telling the American people about US policy in Vietnam. By most accounts at the time and certainly since then, both Ellsberg and the New York Times performed an important public service. They exposed a bankrupt policy that underpinned a war that the US could not win. Ellsberg did not go to jail despite leaking classified information, although it did appear at the time that he might be sent to jail. Certainly, nobody at the New York Times went to jail because, again, journalists don't go to jail for publishing classified information in the United States. It is very important to remember that in the case of Julian Assange, he is not the equivalent of Ellsberg because he was not an insider who leaked the information. Chelsea Manning was the insider. Assange was the equivalent of the New York Times, and thus he should not be extradited so he can be put on trial in the United States. Unsurprisingly, government leaders do not like leaks unless they do the leaking, which they frequently do. Thus, they are powerfully inclined to punish those who do leak, and they even try on occasion to publish the to punish the journalists who publish the leaked material as is the case with Assange. It is fair game for governments to go after leakers, but it is not acceptable for governments to go after journalists. Indeed, it would directly undermine freedom of the press, which is essential for monitoring governments and holding them accountable when they pursue misguided policies. In fact, one of the main reasons that the US government is so determined to put Assange behind bars is that he is exposed malfeasance by US policy makers. In my opinion, that is all for the good and essential for making a liberal democracy like the United States work as efficiently and wisely as possible. Two final points, First, it is important to emphasize that nobody was hurt because of the documents that Assange published. Nobody's life was put in danger because of what he posted on WikiLeaks, and certainly, nobody was killed. For sure, the misguided actions of many US policy makers were exposed because of what Assange did. But that, in my opinion, is all for the good. 2nd, Assange has already paid a huge price for his actions. He has effectively been in prison for years. Sending him to the United States where he is likely to be convicted and sentenced to a long jail term would be a case of cruel and unusual punishment. For all these reasons, I respectfully ask the British high court not to extradite Assange to the United States. In my opinion, that would clearly be the right decision. Thank you.

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - January 18, 2024 at 7:55 AM

Saved - January 18, 2024 at 9:27 AM

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

Best way to listen to the Milei speech in English, rendered using HeyGen, in his own voice. https://t.co/eYsSPLeukc

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker warns that the Western world is facing a threat as its leaders have abandoned freedom for collectivism, leading to poverty. They argue that free market capitalism is the only system to end poverty and provide evidence of its success. They criticize the concept of social justice, stating that it is unfair and violent due to state coercion. The speaker criticizes neoclassical economic theory for its intrusion of the state and socialism, undermining economic growth. They argue that the West is endangered by collectivist ideologies and call for a return to economic freedom and limited government. The speaker concludes by praising entrepreneurs and urging them not to be intimidated by the state.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Good afternoon. Thank you very much. Today, I am present to inform you that the Western world is facing a significant threat. It is in danger because those who are supposed to defend the values of the Western world are co opted by a worldview that inevitably leads to socialism and consequently to poverty and economic deprivation. Unfortunately, In recent decades, motivated by some well intentioned desires to help others and others by the desire to belong to a privileged caste, The main leaders of the Western world have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism. We are here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problems that afflict the citizens of the world, but rather they are their cause. Trust me, There is no one better than us Argentines to provide testimony on these two issues. When we embrace freedom in 18/60, In 35 years, we became the world's 1st dominant power. 35 years, we became the 1st world power. While when we embrace collectivism over the past 100 years, we saw how our citizens began to systematically impoverished themselves until they fell to the 140th position in the world. 40 in the world. But before we can have this discussion, It would be important for us to first look at the data that supports why free market capitalism is not only a possible system to end world poverty, but also the only morally desirable system to achieve it. If we consider the history of economic progress, We can see how from year 0 until around 1800, the world's per capita GDP remained practically constant throughout the reference period. If one looks at a chart of the evolution of economic growth throughout human history, one would be seeing a chart with the shape of a hockey stick, an exponential function that remained constant for 90% of the time and exponentially shoots up from the 19th century. The sole exception to this stagnant history was at the end of 15th century with America's discovery. Except for this, from year 0 to 1800, global per capita GDP remains stagnant without any significant changes. Now not only did capitalism generate an explosion of wealth from the moment it was adopted as an economic system, but if one analyzes the data, What is observed is that growth has been accelerating throughout the entire period. During the entire period between year 0 18 100, The per capita GDP growth rate remains stable at around 0.02% annually that is practically without growth. From 19th century with Industrial Revolution, growth rate reaches 0.66%. Given the current rate, It would require a time span of approximately 107 years to achieve a twofold increase in per capita GDP. In 19,050 growth rate rises to 1.66% annually. 1.50 growth rate rises to 1.36% annually. We no longer need 107 years to double per capita GDP, but 66. If we take the period between 1950 the year 2000, we can see that the growth rate was 2.1% annually, which would mean that in just 33 years, we could double the world's per capita GDP. This trend far from stopping remains alive even now. If we consider the period from 2000 to 2023, the growth rate increased again at 3% per year, meaning we could double our per capita GDP globally in only 23 years. Now when studying per capita GDP from 1800 to today, what is observed is that after the Industrial Revolution, global per capita GDP multiplied by more than 15x generating an explosion of wealth that lifted 90% of the world's population out of poverty. We must never forget that by the year 1800, about 95% of the world's population lived in extreme poverty, While that number dropped to 5% by the year 2020 prior to the pandemic, The conclusion is obvious. Far from being the cause of our problems, free market capitalism as an economic system is the only tool we have to end hunger, poverty and destitution throughout the planet. The empirical evidence is unquestionable. Therefore, as there is no doubt that free market capitalism is superior in productive terms, the left's doxa has attacked capitalism for its moral issues for being according to them as its detractors say unjust. They claim capitalism is bad because it's individualistic and collectivism is good because it's altruistic towards others. And thus they strive for social justice. But this concept that has become trendy in the developed world recently, In my country, it has been a constant in political discourse for over 80 years. The issue is that social justice is unfair and doesn't contribute to general well-being. On the contrary, it's an inherently unfair idea because it's violent. It's unfair because the state is financed through taxes and taxes are collected coercively or can any of us confidently say that they pay taxes of their own free will. This implies that the state is funded through coercion and that the higher the tax burden, the greater the coercion leading to a reduction in freedom. Those who promote social justice start from the idea that the economy as a whole is a cake that can be distributed in a different way. But that cake is not given, it is wealth that is generated in what for example, Israel Kirchner calls a market discovery process. If the good or service that the company offers is not desired, That company goes bankrupt unless it adapts to what the market is demanding. Create a high quality product at a good price or attractive, succeed and produce more, so the market is a process of discovery where the capitalist finds the right direction on the go. But if the state punishes the capitalist for success and blocks him in this process, it destroys his incentives and the consequences are that he will produce less and the cake will be smaller generating harm to society. Collectivism By inhibiting discovery and hindering appropriation ties the entrepreneur's hands preventing him from producing better goods and offering better services at a better price. How can it be then that from academia, international orgs, politics and econ theory, an econ system is demonized that not only has lifted 90% of the world's pop out of extreme poverty and thus so increasingly faster, but is also fair and morally superior? Thanks to capitalism, the world is currently in its best moment. There has never been a moment in history with greater prosperity than the one we live in today. Today's world is freer, richer, more peaceful and more prosperous than ever before. This is true for everyone, but particularly for those countries that are free where they respect economic freedom and individual property rights, because free countries are 12 times richer than repressed ones. Saying goes that in countries with freedom, people live better than 90% of population in repressed countries. It has 25 times fewer poor people in the standard format and 50 times fewer in the extreme format. And if that weren't enough, Citizens of free countries live 25% longer than citizens of repressed countries. Now, In order to understand what we come to defend, it is important to define what we mean when we talk about libertarianism. To define it, I take up the words of the greatest proponent of the ideas of freedom in Argentina, Professor Alberto Venegas Lynch, who says that libertarianism is the unrestricted respect for the life project of others, based on the principle of non aggression and in defense of the right to life, liberty and property, whose fundamental institutions are private property, free markets without state intervention, free competition, division of labor and social cooperation where one can only be successful by serving others with goods of better quality at a better price. In other words, the capitalist, the successful entrepreneur is a social benefactor who contributes to the well-being of society as a whole. In short, a successful entrepreneur is a hero. This is the model that we are proposing for the future of Argentina, a model based on the fundamental principles of libertarianism, the defense of life, freedom and property. Now, if free market capitalism and economic freedom have been remarkable instruments to eradicate poverty globally, and we are presently experiencing the most favorable period in human history, It is worth inquiring why I assert that the West is in jeopardy. I argue that the West is endangered As in countries defending free market, private property and other institutions of libertarianism, sectors of the political and economic establishment due to errors in their theoretical framework and ambition for power undermine libertarianism, opening doors to socialism and potentially condemning us to poverty, misery and stagnation. Because it should never be that socialism is always and everywhere impoverishing, failed in all countries where attempted. It was a failure economically, it was a failure socially, it was a failure culturally and it also killed more than 100,000,000 human beings. The main problem of the West today is that we not only have to confront those who even after the fall of the wall and overwhelming evidence continue to advocate for impoverishing socialism, but also our own leaders, thinkers and academics who sheltered in a misguided framework undermine the foundations of the system that has given us the greatest wealth and prosperity in our history. The theoretical framework I am referring to is Neo classical Economic Theory, which designs an instrument unintentionally functional to the intrusion of the state, socialism and the degradation of society. The issue with NeoClassicals is that since the model they fell in love with doesn't match reality, they attribute the error to the supposed market failure instead of revising the premises of their model. On the text about a supposed market failure, Regulations are introduced that only generate distortions in the price system that hinder economic calculation and consequently savings, investment and growth. This problem essentially lies in the fact that not even supposedly libertarian economists understand what the market is, since if it were understood, it would quickly be seen that it is impossible for there to be such a thing as a market failure. The market is not just a graphical description of a supply curve and a demand curve on a graph. The market is a mechanism of social cooperation where property rights are voluntarily exchanged. Thus considering this definition, discussing market failure is a contradiction in terms. There is no market failure. If transactions are voluntary, the only situation in which there can be a market failure is if there is coercion present and the only one with the ability to coerce in a generalized manner is the state that possesses the monopoly of violence. Consequently, if someone considers that there is a market failure, I would recommend that they check if there is state intervention in the middle. If no state intervention found, suggest reanalyzing as it is definitely wrong. Market failures do not exist. An example of the alleged market failures described by NeoClassical's are concentrated structures in the economy. However, without functions that demonstrate increasing returns to scale whose counterpart are the concentrated structures of the economy, we would be unable to explain the phenomenon of economic growth from 1800 to the present day. Look how interesting. Commencing from the year 1800 and extending onwards with the population experiencing a multiplication of more than 8 or 9 times. The per capita income underwent a growth of more than 15 times in magnitude. To clarify, there are more returns. This caused poverty to drop from 95% to 5%. However, the presence of increasing yields implies the existence of concentrated structures, which would be referred to as, for example, a monopoly in the market economy. How can it be that something that has generated so much well-being? According to NeoClassical theory, that is considered a market failure. Neoclassical economists think outside the box. When the model fails, Don't get angry with reality, get angry with the model and change it. The dilemma for the NeoClassical model is that they aim to enhance market functioning by targeting perceived failures. By doing so, they not only open doors to socialism, but also undermine economic growth. For instance, implementing regulations on monopolies, dismantling their profits and obliterating increasing returns would inevitably annihilate economic growth. In other words, each time you want to correct a presumed market failure, inevitably Due to not knowing the market or because you have become attached to a failed model, you are opening doors to socialism and condemning people to poverty. However, in the face of the theoretical demonstration that state intervention is harmful, the empirical evidence that it failed because it could not be otherwise, the solution that Collectivist will propose is not greater freedom, but greater regulation, generating a downward spiral of regulations until we all become poorer and the lives of all of us depend on a bureaucrat sitting in a luxury office. Given the resounding failure of collectivist models and the undeniable advances of the free world, Socialists were forced to change their agenda. They left behind the class struggle based on the economic system to replace it with other supposed social conflicts equally harmful to community life and economic growth. The first of these new battles was the ridiculous and unnatural fight between man and woman. Libertarianism already establishes equality between sexes. The cornerstone of our creed states that all men are created equal, that we all have the same unalienable rights granted by the creator among which are life, liberty and property. This radical feminism agenda has led to increased state intervention, hindering the economic process. It provides jobs to bureaucrats who haven't contributed anything to society whether through women's ministries or international organizations promoting this agenda. Another conflict that socialists pose is that of humans against nature. They argue that humans cause harm to the planet and that it must be protected at all costs, even advocating for population control mechanisms or supporting the controversial agenda of abortion rights. Unfortunately, These harmful ideas have strongly permeated our society. Neo Marxists have managed to co opt the common sense of the Western world. They achieved this through the appropriation of the media, culture, universities and yes, even international organizations. The final case is very serious as it involves institutions with huge influence on the political and economic decisions of the countries in these multilateral organizations. Fortunately, more of us dare to raise our voices As we see that if we don't confront these ideas head on, the only possible destiny is more state, more regulation, more socialism, more poverty, less freedom and consequently a worse quality of life. Unfortunately, the West has already started down this path. To many, it may sound ridiculous to suggest that the West has embraced socialism, but this view is only ridiculous if one limits themselves to the traditional economic definition of socialism, which states that it is an economic system where the state owns the means of production. In my opinion, this definition needs to be updated to reflect the current circumstances from my perspective. Today, states don't need to control means of production to control every aspect of individuals' lives. With tools such as monetary issuance, debt, subsidies, interest rate control, price controls and regulations to correct alleged market failures, they can control the destinies of millions of human beings. Politically accepted offers in most Western countries are generally collectivist variants. Whether they openly declare themselves as communists, Fascists, Nazis, Socialists, Social Democrats, National Socialists, Christian Democrats, Keynesians, Neo Keynesians, Progressives, Populists, Nationalists or Globalists. In the end, there are no substantive differences. Everyone argues that the state should control all aspects of individuals' lives. All define a model contrary to the one that led humanity to the most spectacular progress in its history. We are here today to extend an invitation to the other Western countries to resume the path towards prosperity, Economic freedom, limited government and unrestricted respect for private property are vital for economic growth. The impoverishment that collectivism produces is not a fantasy nor is it fatalism. It is a reality that Argentinians have known very well for at least 100 years, because we have already we have already gone through this. Because as I said before, since we decided to abandon the model of freedom that had made us rich, We are trapped in a downward spiral where we are getting poorer every day. This is we have already experienced it ourselves and we are here to warn you about what can happen if Western countries who became rich with the model of freedom continue on this path of servitude. The Argentine case is the empirical proof that regardless of wealth, natural resources, population capability, education level or the amount of gold bars in the Central Bank's coffers, these factors do not guarantee success. If measures are adopted that hinder the free functioning of markets, free competition, free price systems, If trade is hindered, if private property is attacked, the only possible destination is poverty. To summarize, I want to convey a message to all entrepreneurs present and those who are not, but are following us from around the globe, whether they are here or not physically. Don't be intimidated by the political cast or the parasites who live off the state. Don't yield to a political class that only wants to prolong its power and preserve its privileges. You are social benefactors. You are heroes. You are the creators of the most extraordinary era of prosperity we have ever experienced. Don't let anyone say ambition is immoral. If you earn money, it's because you provide a superior product, better price contributing to well-being. Do not yield to the advance of the state. The state is not the solution. The state is the problem itself. You are the true protagonist of this story and know that from today, you have Argentina as an unconditional ally. Thank you very much and long life freedom, Dammit.

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - November 4, 2023 at 3:49 AM

Saved - November 5, 2023 at 2:25 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

The conversation highlights doubts about the media's credibility regarding Ukraine's counteroffensive. @DavidSacks questions the media's misleading information, and @elonmusk wonders why the public was consistently deceived, possibly with government involvement. @TheChiefNerd suggests that the media relied on talking points from intelligence agencies.

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

Another remarkable confessional by the MSM in which we learn that everything we were told over the last 5 months about Ukraine making progress in its Counteroffensive was a lie.

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

@DavidSacks The question that I have is why did the media lie to the public so regularly and consistently, aided and abetted by many arms of our government?

@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd

@elonmusk @DavidSacks They were just reading the talking points from the intel agencies.

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - November 1, 2023 at 8:34 PM

Saved - November 2, 2023 at 1:37 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

Zelensky's own aides reveal to TIME magazine that the Ukraine war is unwinnable. The article criticizes Zelensky for his failure to recognize the reality on the battlefield and his reluctance to negotiate with Russia. It highlights Ukraine's unrealistic war aims, staggering casualties, collapsing morale, and uncontrollable corruption. The question arises: will we follow Walter Cronkite's advice and seek an honorable peace, or remain trapped in Zelensky's bunker of delusion? Read more on @RStatecraft.

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

THE UKRAINE WAR’S “CRONKITE MOMENT”: Zelensky’s own inner circle tells TIME that the war is unwinnable. If you haven’t read it yet, this week’s TIME magazine cover story on Zelensky is extraordinary. It confirms almost everything that critics of the war have been saying, starting with the fact that it is unwinnable for Ukraine. Moreover, it goes further in describing Zelensky as “delusional” for his failure to recognize battlefield realities and his unwillingness to consider peace negotiations with Russia. Most remarkably, the sources for the article are Zelensky’s own aides and advisers. In other words, the “Putin talking points” are coming from inside the house. The author Simon Shuster (@shustry) previously wrote the article naming Zelensky TIME's “Person of the Year” for 2022, so it cannot be said that he has not portrayed Zelensky favorably in the past. Presumably this is why he was granted such privileged access to Zelensky’s inner circle. Ostensibly the article portrays Zelensky as a heroic figure forced to go it alone as times get tough and Western allies start to “abandon” him. But the truth leaks out as Zelensky’s aides pour forth a torrent of complaints and inconvenient truths. These include: 1) Ukraine’s war aims are unrealistic. Kyiv has long maintained that its definition of victory, namely the retaking of all Ukrainian territory including Crimea, is achievable with Western arms and money. After a disastrous summer counteroffensive, Zelensky’s advisers have reconsidered. Yet Zelensky’s belief in ultimate victory over Russia has only "hardened into a form that worries some of his advisors." Shuster describes Zelensky’s faith as “immovable, verging on the messianic.” One of Zelensky’s closest aides tells Shuster that, “He is delusional. We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.” 2) Staggering casualties have decimated the Ukrainian army. Ukraine has refused to disclose casualty counts throughout the war, dismissing as Russian propaganda the increasingly-credible reports of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian casualties. But another close aide to Zelensky tells Shuster that casualties are so horrific that “even if the U.S. and its allies come through with all the weapons they have pledged, ‘we don’t have the men to use them.’” Shuster reports that “In some branches of the military, the shortage of personnel has become even more dire than the deficit in arms and ammunition.” According to the article, the average age of a currently-serving Ukrainian soldier is 43 and getting older all the time. The youth have already been sacrificed. 3) Morale is collapsing. Within the officer ranks, there is growing dissension bordering on mutiny. One close Zelensky aide complained to Shuster that some front-line commanders have begun refusing orders to advance even when they come directly from the office of the President. In many cases, orders are refused because they are deemed impossible. 4) Corruption is uncontrollable. It has long been taboo in Western media to suggest that Ukraine’s government is shot through with corruption. Yet a top presidential advisor admitted as much to Shuster once his audio recorder had been shut off: “People are stealing like there is no tomorrow.” After Walter Cronkite returned from his fact-finding mission to Vietnam in 1968, he concluded that the war was unwinnable. He ended his famous broadcast to the American people with this exhortation: “it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.” Now that the truth is clear and undeniable, will we take Cronkite’s advice with regard to this war? Will we seek to negotiate an honorable peace and save the Ukrainian people from further needless slaughter? Or will we remain trapped in Zelensky’s bunker of "delusion" — psychologically if not physically — waiting for the inevitable end?

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

To read more about this, check out my new article for @RStatecraft: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/zelensky-war-time-magazine/

Zelensky: TIME may be on his side, but real time, isn't Official Ukraine narrative collapses as Zelensky’s inner circle admits to magazine that the war cannot be won militarily. responsiblestatecraft.org

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - March 21, 2022 at 4:23 AM

Saved - September 25, 2023 at 2:57 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

The war in Ukraine reveals a battle between good and evil, but the presence of neo-Nazis from Europe complicates matters. The threat is real, as these militias are armed with Western weapons. Disarming them after the war is a concern. Acknowledging and addressing this issue is crucial to prevent their forceful imposition of will. The US government's role in arming these groups should not be overlooked.

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

I know this war is an Extremely Simple Battle between Good and Evil. There’s just the pesky problem of those neo-Nazis flocking from all over Europe. They’re on the Evil side, right? Right? https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/14/neo-nazi-ukraine-war/

Perspective | Neo-Nazis are exploiting Russia’s war in Ukraine for their own purposes Not since ISIS have we seen such a flurry of recruitment activity. washingtonpost.com

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

The truth about Ukraine's far-Right militias Russia has empowered dangerous factions unherd.com

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

NBC News: “Ukraine's Nazi problem is real, even if Putin's 'denazification' claim isn't” “Not acknowledging this threat means that little is being done to guard against it.” https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ukraine-has-nazi-problem-vladimir-putin-s-denazification-claim-war-ncna1290946

Opinion | Ukraine's Nazi problem is real, even if Putin's 'denazification' claim isn't Russia-Ukraine conflict: Vladimir Putin’s ‘denazification’ claim for war is a lie. But Ukraine has a neo-Nazi problem. nbcnews.com

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

Just wondering: is there a plan to disarm these neo-Nazi battalions, who are now heavily armed with western weapons, after they’ve served their purpose of helping the good guys win? Or do we just trust that they won’t try to impose their will by force after the war?

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

👀 https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/tnamp/

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

You should never question who the US government is arming because we are so incredibly good at this. https://t.co/Yfx93ztcHc

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - March 26, 2023 at 5:59 AM

Saved - September 10, 2023 at 7:07 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

Every technology wave builds upon the previous one. PCs made mainframes accessible. The internet expanded PC capabilities. Social media connected people. Mobiles truly personalized computing. And now, AI empowers computers to solve problems. AI is the biggest wave yet.

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

Every new technology wave causes the previous ones to be reinterpreted as stepping stones. For example: Personal Computer - Mainframe shrunk down so everyone can have one. Internet - Now we finally have a bunch of things we can do on a PC. Social - The real point of getting on the internet was to interact with other people. Mobile - Actually the PC wasn’t that “personal.” The phone is the real personal computer. AI - The reason we gave a computer ubiquitous access was to let it solve problems for us. AI is the biggest wave yet.

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - August 25, 2023 at 12:33 AM

Saved - August 25, 2023 at 12:41 AM

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

Biden's DOJ is suing SpaceX for not hiring more refugees. In other words, it demands SpaceX hire fewer Americans! But national security laws require that rocket companies hire American. This lawsuit is so nonsensical it suggests a political motivation.

DOJ sues SpaceX for not hiring asylum seekers and refugees | Semafor The Justice Department alleges that SpaceX discouraged asylum seekers and refugees from applying for jobs or refused employment to them. semafor.com

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - August 13, 2023 at 2:14 AM

Saved - August 13, 2023 at 5:41 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

The US faced crucial choices before the Ukraine War. In 2004, it could've stayed out, but supported a revolution. In 2008, it ignored advice not to expand NATO to Ukraine. In 2013, it refused to compromise on EU accession. In 2014, it backed the Maidan coup. From 2015-2022, it supported Kiev's violent suppression. In 2021-2022, it rejected negotiations over NATO. It sabotaged peace agreements in Belarus and Istanbul. Now, instead of seeking peace, it demands the slaughter to continue. The US consistently chose confrontation over compromise.

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

THE FORKS IN THE ROAD In this video from his podcast, @AMercouris provides an excellent historical summary of the choices that the U.S. faced in the lead-up to the Ukraine War that would have averted the current disaster: In 2004, the US could have stayed out of Ukrainian affairs altogether, but instead it chose to support a color revolution. In 2008, the US could have listened to then-ambassador, now-CIA director Bill Burns’ advice not to expand NATO to Ukraine because it would cross the brightest of all redlines for the entire Russian leadership. But instead the US issued the Bucharest declaration that Ukraine would join NATO. In 2013, the US and its European allies could have compromised on the EU accession agreement to address Russian concerns. But instead they maintained that they would not change even a punctuation mark. In 2014, the US could have supported a peaceful transition of power in Ukraine. But instead it backed the Maidan coup against a democratically-elected government. In 2015-2022, the US could have supported peaceful attempts, via the Minsk agreements, to resolve the protests by ethnic Russians that broke out in reaction to the coup. But instead it supported Kiev’s attempts to violently suppress and shell the Donbas. In 2021-2022, the US could have negotiated over the draft Russian agreements which principally sought a written guarantee that Ukraine would not join NATO. But instead it insisted that it would never compromise over that policy. In 2022, after the war broke out, the US could have supported the peace process in Belarus and Istanbul, but instead it sabotaged those agreements. And now, in the wake of a failing counteroffensive, the US could seek to enter into serious negotiations with the Russians, but instead it’s demanding that the slaughter continue. At every fork in the road, the US foreign policy elite have chosen the path of confrontation and conflict as opposed to compromise and peace.

Video Transcript AI Summary

There have been numerous choices throughout the history of the Ukraine conflict. The West intervened and supported the orange revolution in Ukraine, despite Russia's opposition. The option of engaging Ukraine and Russia in trade negotiations was not taken, and instead, protests were supported, leading to President Yanukovych's fall. The West also supported Ukraine's military attack on the people in Donbas, despite the possibility of negotiations. The West refused to negotiate with Russia on Ukraine's entry into NATO and sabotaged agreements that could have led to compromise. Now, there is another opportunity for a different approach, but it is predicted that the West will once again choose the wrong path.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: That at every point, there have been choices. There were choices going all the way back before the orange revolution of 2004 to leave the situation in Ukraine alone. The West intervened and supported the orange revolution in Ukraine. In 2008, it made the disastrous decision despite advice from even people like William Burns, the U. S. Ambassador to Moscow, who is now of course CIA Director, that inviting Ukraine into NATO was something that Russia was certain to absolutely reject and oppose. And then of course, there was the option at the time when President Yanukovych decided that he would need to renegotiate the association agreement with the EU in order to facilitate and maintain trade with Russia, there was the option of engaging Ukraine and Russia in those kind of trade negotiations. That was what was offered in 2013, but again, the United States and the Europeans didn't take that option. They wanted instead the entire association agreement as it was to remain unchanged. I remember they said that they weren't prepared to change even a punctuation mark in the text. Instead, they supported protests, sometimes violent protests, that eventually caused President Janikovich's fall and which to some extent at least, to a great extent, in fact, they not only supported, but actually, in my opinion, organized that perhaps a more controversial question. Anyway, they then supported the Ukrainian government in its decision, the new Ukrainian government, the new Ukrainian government, the new Ukrainian government, in its decision to launch what he called an anti terrorist operation in Eastern Ukraine when protests against the change of government in Kyiv broke out there. This despite the fact that the Russians at that time were encouraging negotiations that the then Secretary of State, John Kerry, actually agreed with the Russians that a federalized solution for Ukraine might be the optimal way forward. All that was thrown aside and the West supported Ukraine's military attack on the people in Donbas, who, up to that point, were willing to engage Ukraine in negotiations. And that military attack miscarried and then there was Minsk I and then there was Minsk II. The West could have got behind both of those agreements and insisted that Ukraine implement terms of those agreements. But of course, it didn't do that. And then there was the crisis, the diplomatic crisis in late 2021, early 2022, when the Russians proposed their draft treaties, again making it clear that Ukraine's entry into NATO was unacceptable. But of course, the West refused to negotiate about that. Either they insisted that the principle, the so called open door principle, which doesn't exist the NATO membership was sacrosanct, could not be negotiated with or bargained with, they weren't even prepared to make, as it turns out, as it now turns out, basic concessions about agreements on non deployment of U. S. Forces, including missile forces in Ukraine. They were prepared to discuss this informally, but they weren't prepared to agree to illegally bound text concerning any of these things. And then in the meetings just before the start of the conflict, meetings between Ukraine, involving Ukraine in the so called contact group, they backed Ukraine as it again refused to implement the Minsk agreements by negotiating with the leaders of the Donbas, which it was required to do by the Minsk agreement. They looked the other way, a shelling from Ukraine intensified. And then when the conflict began, when Ukraine and Russia almost came to terms through a series of negotiations which took place in Belarus and which took place in Istanbul. They sabotaged those agreements in sequence of steps in which the United States and the western powers have always taken the line of conflict instead of the line of potential compromise. And now we are at another fork in the road. They can again consider at least the option discussed and put forward by where it can be. They can tell Ukraine, right, your offensive has failed, pull back, set up fortified lines, try and negotiate with the Russians, hold them back, they may be getting stronger, but if you can create fortified lines, that might slow the Russians down and that might create doubts in Moscow and perhaps push people there towards negotiations. And who knows, in that kind of environment, it might be that the international opinion might shift in favor of negotiations. Also, perhaps China and India might press you to negotiations by pressing the Russians to agree to negotiations as well. I predict that like all the other forks in the road, the West, the United States, will take the wrong one. But let it never be said that it took that wrong turn without advice about the better course that it might have followed. That article by Beeb and Webb is there. Everyone can read it. Lincoln, Sullivan, Leland, the President himself can all read it, they can also see what it says. I don't expect that they will follow the advice that this is there, but never let it be said that the United States didn't have choices and that it didn't always choose the wrong ones. Thank you very much

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - June 24, 2023 at 9:19 PM

Saved - June 25, 2023 at 12:19 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

The crisis in Russia seems to be calming down, but some American policy makers and influencers have lost perspective. They expressed joy over the possibility of a coup in the world's largest nuclear weapons state. This shows they have lost any conception of a distinct American national interest. Wars are unpredictable and destructive. It was in the best interest of the United States to avoid this by supporting the Istanbul deal. Now the war seems likely to enter an even more desperate stage for both Russia and Ukraine. Do we want to keep rolling the dice or figure out how to bring the killing to an end?

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

What’s better: negotiated peace or nuclear chaos? It looks like the crisis in Russia is abating after many premature predictions, dunks, and celebrations. We’ve come to expect such behavior from mids like Kinzinger, but the participation of so many more serious American policy makers and influencers shows the extent to which they have lost perspective. They expressed glee over the possibility of a coup in the world’s largest nuclear weapons state by a warlord whose main gripe is that Russia has not prosecuted the war vigorously enough, who advocates full mobilization and total war, and is more likely to countenance nuclear use. I can understand why Ukrainian nationalists — who are desperate to win the war in light of a counteroffensive that even CNN admitted yesterday is thus-far failing — would be willing to roll the dice and root for chaos and civil war in Russia. But for American leaders to do so shows that they have lost any conception of a distinct American national interest. What the last 24 hours have underscored is that wars are not just incredibly destructive but also incredibly unpredictable. I continue to maintain that it was in the best interest of the United States to avoid this by supporting the Istanbul deal. It would have cost us nothing except an agreement not to add Ukraine to NATO. In fact, this would not have been a cost but a benefit, saving ourselves from the insanity of committing American boys & girls to fight Russia one day on Ukraine’s behalf. Now the war seems likely to enter an even more desperate stage for both Russia and Ukraine. Is this what we want? History proves that things can always get worse. ISIS was worse than Saddam, Lenin was worse than the Tsar, and Prigozhin could have been worse than Putin. Do we want to keep rolling the dice? Or do we want to figure out how to bring the killing to an end?

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - May 17, 2023 at 2:35 AM

Saved - May 17, 2023 at 3:58 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

George Soros has been accused of using his wealth to influence local district attorney elections in order to change the law through the abuse of prosecutorial discretion. This strategy worked because few were paying attention to hyperlocal DA elections. Now that the results are clear, many more people are paying attention. Criticism of Soros should not be dismissed as antisemitism, as the influence of money in politics is a legitimate topic of conversation. It is important to recognize when a special interest has subverted the public interest.

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

George Soros has been so uniquely destructive to law & order in American cities that there’s a name for the carnage he’s wrought: “Soros DAs.” His organization described its strategy to Politico in a 2016 article: it would change the law, not by going through legislatures, but rather by buying under-funded DA elections. His DAs would then change the law through the abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Soros’ strategy worked because few were paying attention to hyper-local DA elections. No one expected out-of-town money to come in and seek to radically change their quality of life. Now that the results are clear, many more people are paying attention. This has caused some in the mainstream media and leftwing political groups to attempt to portray any criticism of Soros as anti-semitism. This is absurd. Soros sought to have an outsized impact on public policy. He should not be immune from criticism. In any other context, the influence of money in politics would be a legitimate topic of conversation. Indeed, it is highly appropriate in a democracy to recognize when a special interest has subverted the public interest. https://politico.com/story/2016/08/george-soros-criminal-justice-reform-227519

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - April 21, 2023 at 9:43 PM

Saved - April 22, 2023 at 2:21 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

The Secretary of State allegedly used a hoax to cover up Biden family corruption, prompting false accusations against Russia. The media has not questioned the impact on peace talks or other claims of Russian misdeeds. American diplomacy's reputation suffers as a result.

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

The Secretary of State orchestrated a hoax in which 51 government officials falsely accused the Russian government of disinformation in order to cover up Biden family corruption. Is it any wonder that American diplomacy is held in such low regard? https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/21/ex-cia-official-blinken-prompted-infamous-intel-statement-calling-hunter-biden-laptop-russian-disinfo/

Ex-CIA Boss: Blinken Incited Letter Defaming Hunter Laptop Story Antony Blinken played a role in creating a letter from former intel officials claiming Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation. thefederalist.com

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

There was a time when a revelation like this would have forced an immediate resignation. Instead the media doesn’t even ask whether it could compromise the SecState’s ability to engage in peace talks with Russia or to assert other claims of Russian misdeeds.

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - April 21, 2023 at 9:43 PM

Saved - April 22, 2023 at 2:20 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

David Sacks accuses the Secretary of State of orchestrating a hoax involving 51 officials falsely accusing Russia to cover up Biden family corruption. Elon Musk calls for accountability.

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

The Secretary of State orchestrated a hoax in which 51 government officials falsely accused the Russian government of disinformation in order to cover up Biden family corruption. Is it any wonder that American diplomacy is held in such low regard? https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/21/ex-cia-official-blinken-prompted-infamous-intel-statement-calling-hunter-biden-laptop-russian-disinfo/

Ex-CIA Boss: Blinken Incited Letter Defaming Hunter Laptop Story Antony Blinken played a role in creating a letter from former intel officials claiming Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation. thefederalist.com

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

@DavidSacks There needs to be some accountability here!

@DavidSacks — David Sacks

Posted - February 26, 2023 at 3:44 PM

Saved - February 27, 2023 at 3:19 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

The origin of Covid-19 was likely a lab leak, according to the WSJ. Fauci, Collins, and NIH spread disinformation to cover up their involvement in gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. The media and Big Tech enforced the official narrative, promoting disinformation. This story highlights the dangerous power of unelected officials and the complicity of corporate media.

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

WSJ: Covid came from a lab https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a

WSJ News Exclusive | Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says U.S. agency’s revised assessment is based on new intelligence wsj.com

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

This was not hard to figure out and we would have understood it clearly at the outset of the virus were it not for a disinformation campaign by Fauci, Collins & NIH.

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

Why would Fauci do this? He was responsible for reversing a ban on gain-of-function research, then funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab via a group called EcoHealth Alliance. In other words, he was complicit.

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

The prestige media eagerly spread Fauci’s disinformation, as @AshleyRindsberg showed.

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

Even a year ago, the NYT was still publishing ridiculous studies designed to muddy the waters. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/26/science/covid-virus-wuhan-origins.html

New Research Points to Wuhan Market as Pandemic Origin (Published 2022) Two new studies say the virus was present in animals at the Huanan seafood market in 2019. nytimes.com

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

Of course Big Tech enforced the official narrative through censorship. https://t.co/5wvGqAHuLT

@DavidSacks - David Sacks

Why is this story so important? It shows: 1) unelected government officials have huge power to pursue dangerous agendas. 2) rather than holding them accountable, corporate media cover for them. 3) tech censorship ends up promoting rather than suppressing “disinformation.”