TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @ivan_8848
reSee.it AI Summary
I argue the war isn’t about Ukraine but a globalist plan to seize its resources and weaken Russia. Elites in the US/Europe want BlackRock's reach, pressuring NATO near Russia, ignoring Moscow’s red lines. The endgame includes BRICS expanding with a gold-backed currency, potentially ending the petrodollar. If the US intervenes in western Ukraine, a full war could follow. Putin has shown restraint; a major Russian offensive could unfold as Ukraine’s government loses legitimacy.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
MUST WATCH‼️‼️‼️ 🚨Ukraine war cause and the end game explained: War of the globalist elite, Blackrock, and bankers. Colonel Douglas Macgregor: 📑 In Ukraine, which I think happening there. And what, do you know, what is the end game? Well, for the globalists that are running the show, this is a globalist neocon elite, both on the hill as well as in the White House. And these elites in Europe, particularly in Paris, Berlin, London, they're all interested in seeing Blackrock take over Ukraine, number one, so that it can be systematically stripped of its resources and turned into a subjugated state that belongs to the larger globalist elites. But they also want to see that happen to Russia, which is why this war was never about Ukraine. It was always about what can be done to destroy Russia. And of course, since the people in charge didn't perform any strategic analysis, they never thought about purpose, method, or end state. They concluded that Russia today is still the Russia of 1992. It's weak, it's prostrate, its economy is ineffective. Remember the McCain statement, oh, Russia is Spain with a gas station. All of these arrogant displays of american hubris, treating Russia as though it was a third class nation with a fourth class military. Well, we're getting an education right now. We paid no attention to the Russians, who had legitimate concerns about what we were doing in eastern Ukraine. We were building an army to attack them. We put a hostile government into that country in 2014. And we kept telling them that it made no difference to us what they thought or what they cared about. They said, we don't want NATO on our border. No one paid attention. President Trump tried to listen, but he was surrounded by people who subverted him, people who were not loyal to the president, who took an oath of obedience to the orders of the president and then ignored them. So what's the outcome? You've got a very serious war that could become regional, even global, and no one in the White House seems to really grasp that. But we're losing. The globalists are losing. And when the ground dries, and in June, you're going to see a massive russian offensive. And most of what we call this thing called Ukraine is going to be swept away, especially that government in Kiev. But that government doesn't represent the interests of the ukrainian people. They represent the interests of this globalist elite who are interested in resources and stripping them and using them and exploiting them to make money. Yeah, it feels like the biggest threat to America is actually what's happened to the petrodollar. When you have Putin now talking with the Saudis and Putin now talking with Xi, and you get rid of the petrodollar, and all of a sudden all that borrowing that we do where we're living way above our means, that's no longer possible, plausible or worse. I think what you're saying is this war has become financial as well as military. And the globalists understand that they're going to lose this war. And what will come of this is that the BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, are going to be increased by 81 additional members. And all of these people are going to go to a currency that is backed by gold. And once they go to that currency backed by gold, whether it is one currency or a basket of currencies, it doesn't make any difference. Yes, we are in a lot of trouble. The globalists know that, and it is why they are so desperate right now. And the greatest fear that I have is that when the Russians do attack and it becomes abundantly clear that Ukraine is finished, I mean, it's already obvious to anybody who visits the place for any length of time. It's in ruins. But once that occurs, I fear that there will be pressure to commit US forces in Poland and Romania, along with Polish forces and potentially Romanian ones, to western Ukraine. And if that occurs, the gloves will come off, because truthfully, thus far, Putin has exercised tremendous restraint, tremendous patience. He does not want a war with the west. If he wanted that, wed already have it. But if we intervene in western Ukraine, it's over. We'll be in a full fledged war. Expand on that a little bit, because it's sort of interesting. You know, I think we grossly miscalculated. Putin had made several speeches over the last 20 years, repeatedly saying, please do not advance the border to Russia. Do not try to transform Ukraine into a hostile actor, an actor with hostile intentions towards Russia. What happens in Ukraine is of existential strategic interest to us, just as theoretically, what happens in Mexico is of existential strategic interest to us. Although this administration has decided to ignore it. He expected that we would negotiate, that he would demonstrate that this was serious, and that Russia wanted its population in eastern Ukraine, which is really russian, to have equal rights before the law. He wanted to end the oppression of the Russians that live
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the Ukraine conflict as part of a broader geopolitical strategy attributed to a globalist elite. Speaker 1 contends that globalists in the White House, in Congress, and in European capitals want BlackRock to take over Ukraine to strip its resources and subjugate it to a globalist agenda, and they also aim to destroy Russia. The claim is that the war has never been about Ukraine itself, but about destroying Russia. According to Speaker 1, the people in charge failed to perform strategic analysis, underestimating Russia by treating it as if it were the post-Soviet state of 1992—weak and prostrate. The reference to John McCain’s description of Russia as “Spain with a gas station” is invoked to illustrate this hubris. The argument continues that Russians warned against NATO on their border and about the dangers of Western actions in Eastern Ukraine, but these concerns were ignored.
Speaker 1 asserts that the outcome is a dangerous, ongoing war that could become regional or global, with a consequence that the White House is not fully grasping. He predicts a massive Russian offensive when ground conditions permit, foreseeing that much of what is currently identified as Ukraine—especially the Kyiv government—will be swept away. He claims the Kyiv government represents the interests of the globalist elite seeking resources to exploit, not the Ukrainian people.
The discussion shifts to broader economic implications, including the potential loss of the petrodollar as Putin engages with Saudi Arabia and China. Speaker 1 frames the war as both military and financial, suggesting that BRICS could expand dramatically and move to a gold-backed currency, whether a single currency or a basket. He asserts that this shift threatens the current global financial system and that the globalists are desperate as a result. The speaker fears that once Ukraine’s fate becomes clear, there will be pressure to deploy US forces into Western Ukraine, with Polish and possibly Romanian troops, which would escalate into a full-scale war with Russia. According to Speaker 1, Putin has shown restraint and does not want a war with the West, but intervention in Western Ukraine could end in open conflict.
Speaker 1 also argues that Putin has repeatedly warned against advancing the border toward Russia and transforming Ukraine into a hostile actor, framing what happens in Ukraine as an existential strategic interest to the United States. He contrasts this with a claim that Biden’s stance has prioritized regime change in Russia and the division of Russia to exploit it, while alleging that oligarchs like Kolomovsky, Soros, and others are part of this globalist project. The discussion concludes with criticisms of U.S. military recruitment practices, suggesting the Army and Marines are not prepared for such a conflict, including comments about recruitment of illegals encouraged by the administration.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Or in Ukraine, which I happening there. And what do you you know, what what is the end game?
Speaker 1: Well, for the globalists that are running the show, this is a globalist neo con elite in both on the hill as well as in the White House and these elites in Europe, particularly in Paris, Berlin, London, they're all interested in seeing BlackRock take over Ukraine, number one, so that it can be systematically stripped of its resources and turned into a subjugated state that belongs to the larger globalist elites. But they also wanna see that happen to Russia, which is why this war was never about Ukraine. It was always about what can be done to destroy Russia. And, of course, since the people in charge didn't perform any strategic analysis, they never thought about purpose, method, or end state. They concluded that Russia today is still the Russia of 1992.
It's weak. It's prostrate. Its economy is ineffective. Remember the McCain statement? Oh, Russia is Spain with a gas station.
All of these arrogant displays of American hubris treating Russia as though it was a third class nation with a fourth class military. Well, we're getting an education right now. We paid no attention to the Russians who had legitimate concerns about what we were doing in Eastern Ukraine. We were building an army to attack them. We put a hostile government into that country in 2014, and we kept telling them that it made no difference to what they thought or what they cared about.
They said we don't want NATO on our border. No one paid attention. President Trump tried to listen, but he was surrounded by people who subverted him, people who were not loyal to the president, who who took an oath of obedience to the orders of the president and then ignored them. So what's what's the outcome? You've got a very serious war that could become regional, even global, and no one in the White House seems to really grasp that.
But we're losing. The globalists are losing. And when the ground dries and in June, you're straight you're gonna see a massive Russian offensive, and most of what we call this thing called Ukraine is gonna be swept away, especially that government in Kyiv. But that government doesn't represent the interests of the Ukrainian people. They represent the interests of this globalist elite who are interested in resources and stripping them and using them and exploiting them to make money.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It feels like, you know, the biggest threat to America is actually what's happened to the petrodollar. When you have Putin now talking with the Saudis and Putin now talking with Xi, and you get rid of the petrodollar, and all of a sudden, all that borrowing that we do, where we're living way above our means, that's no longer possible, plausible, or or worse.
Speaker 1: I think what you're seeing is this war has become financial as well as military. And the globalists understand that they're going to lose this war. And what will come of this is that the BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, are going to be increased by 81 additional members. And all of these people are going to go to a currency that is backed by gold. And once they go to that currency backed by gold, whether it is one currency or a basket of currencies, it doesn't make any difference.
Yes. We are in a lot of trouble. The globalists know that, and it is why they are so desperate right now. And the greatest fear that I have is that when the Russians do attack and it becomes abundantly clear that Ukraine is finished. I mean, it's already obvious to anybody who visits a place for any length of time.
It's in ruins. But once that occurs, I fear that there will be pressure to commit US forces in Poland and Romania along with Polish forces and potentially Romanian ones to Western Ukraine. And if that occurs, the gloves will come off because, truthfully, thus far, Putin has exercised tremendous restraint, tremendous patience. He does not want a war with the West. If he wanted that, we'd already have it.
But if we intervene in Western Ukraine, it's over. We'll be in a full fledged war.
Speaker 0: Expand on that a little bit because it's sort of interesting. You know? I I
Speaker 1: think we've grossly miscalculated. Putin had made several speeches over the last twenty years repeatedly saying, please do not advance the border to Russia. Do not try to transform Ukraine into a hostile actor, an actor with hostile intentions towards Russia. What happens in Ukraine is of an existential strategic interest to us, just as theoretically, what happens in Mexico is of the existential strategic interest to us. Although this administration has decided to ignore it.
He expected that we would negotiate, that he would demonstrate that this was serious, and that Russia wanted to wanted its population in Eastern Ukraine, which is really Russian, to have equal rights before the law. He wanted to end the oppression of the Russians that lived there, and he wasn't going to surrender Crimea. The reason he went into Crimea is he was afraid it was gonna be turned into a US naval base. But Biden said, our goal is regime change. Our goal is to get rid of Putin, and our goal is ultimately to divide Russia into constituent parts then exploit it.
All of his supporters, his staffers, everyone in the globalist camp knows this is the truth. The so called oligarchs, Kolomovsky, Soros, and others were all part of this. None of this is news. Finally, he said enough's enough. He stopped.
They set up a strategic defense. They ran an economy of force mission, and now they have a force in place that can go as far as it needs to go, which includes to the Polish border. They have a plan for a thirty one thirty one month war against us if we insist on fighting it, and we are in no shape to fight a war. We can't even recruit the United States Army or the marines. The marines are running around trying to recruit illegals that are being encouraged to do so by the administration.
Is that is that what you want in the ground force to fight for this country? Forget it. It's not gonna work.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the Ukraine-Russia war was designed by neocons via Ukraine to bring down Russia. NATO has encircled Russia since the nineties and exists to create problems its existence solves. It feeds on war and needs external enemies. Voices like Sachs, Mearsheimer, Johnson, and Todd point to NATO enlargement as the provocation driving this conflict.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Bookmark this. Keep this. Remember this. Watch it often. Memorize it. Learn it. Understand it. Grasp it. Believe it. And never forget it. Ever. 🚨 The War Waged by NEOCONS Via Ukraine Was Designed to Bring Down Russia The Ukraine - Russian War Was Provoked! If you still believe that Russia started this conflict in 2022, then you are either corrupt, ignorant, or brainwashed. NATO DISBAND !!! Putin says the current crisis in Ukraine is a direct result of years of aggressive NATO policies. ▶NATO has been encircling Russia since the nineties. ▶NATO exists to solve the problems created by NATO’s existence. ▶ NATO has never defended anyone, but only attacked. ▶NATO is a military Alliance that feeds on war. ▶To justify its existence, NATO constantly needs an external enemies and conflicts. ▶The purpose of the NATO alliance is "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. ▶Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The Casus Belli of the Ukraine War is NATO Enlargement, US Coup, CIA Operations All Over Ukraine. ▶Jeffrey Sachs on Trump: Until President Trump Says Publicly, "NATO Will NOT Enlarge," This War Will Continue. That's his JOB. The way to end this war is to say publicly, "NATO enlargement was a mistake, it was a provocation, it was a threat to Russia's security." ▶Jeffrey Sachs: Russia is not going to stop fighting as long as NATO enlargement is on the table. This is the basic reason why we are at war. ▶Prof. John Mearsheimer: NATO Expansion Was Really the Key. Ukraine was becoming a de facto member of NATO. ▶Larry C. Johnson A Former CIA Officer: 30 Years of Provocation by the West, 30 Years of Western Efforts to Bring Ukraine INTO NATO, 30 Years of Using, Making, Ukraine a de FACTO Member of NATO by Virtue of the FACT That, They've Conducted More NATO Military Exercises in Ukraine, Than 24 Other NATO Countries Over the Last 30 years, so That's Remarkable for a Country That's NOT 🚨Not dissolving NATO in 1990 was a big mistake, and it’s time to fix that mistake. Emmanuel Todd: “The war in Ukraine is perceived in the West as a Russian invasion of Ukraine, and of course, I admit that it was the Russian army that entered Ukraine. But the historical reality is that the true cause of the conflict is NATO's expansion into Russia, through Ukraine, and the war waged by the Ukrainians themselves, pushed by the West, against the Russians in Donbas. It is absolutely true that, for the Russians, this war is defensive. For me, it is obvious that the Americans and Europeans are the aggressors, since they have come within a thousand kilometers of Moscow. This is the objective situation. What is fascinating is that these aggressors think they are the ones being attacked and that they are forced to defend themselves. There is an element of madness in our situation in Europe.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 argues that the United States has repeatedly engaged in illegal military actions and regime changes in multiple countries, starting with the bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a European state, with the aim of breaking Serbia and installing Bondsteel, a large NATO base in the Balkans, under Clinton. They claim this was done without UN authority and described as a NATO mission.
Speaker 1 continues, alleging that the US has subsequently waged war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, where, according to them, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton tasked the CIA with overthrowing Bashar al-Assad. They also claim NATO illegally bombed Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and that in Kyiv in February 2014 the US overthrew Yanukovych together with right-wing Ukrainian military forces, noting that the overthrow happened the day after EU representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych for early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand-down of both sides. They assert that the US supported the new government immediately afterward, despite that agreement and without addressing it as unconstitutional.
Speaker 1 asserts that Russia, the United States, and the EU were parties to the 2015 Minsk two agreement, which was unanimously voted on by the UN Security Council, signed by the government of Ukraine, and guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. They contend that Minsk II was dismissed as a holding pattern by inside-US government circles, despite the UN Security Council approval. They claim Angela Merkel later said Minsk II was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine time to build its strength, countering the assertion that Minsk II was meant to end the war. The speaker emphasizes distrust of the United States government and calls for all sides to sit down publicly to agree on terms, with both the United States and Russia committing to specific boundaries, and for NATO not to enlarge, so that a written, global judgment can be made.
Speaker 2 adds that there has been an ongoing effort to create an anti-Russian platform in Ukraine, describing it as an enclave, and accusing the US and its allies of lying about not expanding NATO multiple times.
Speaker 3 states that President Putin sent a draft treaty asking NATO to promise no more enlargement as a precondition for not invading Ukraine, and notes that this draft was not signed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You seem very reliant on accepting Putin's world view rather than perhaps the stark reality of the barbarism with which he's executed this war.
Speaker 1: Yeah. May maybe because I know too much about The United States because the first war in Europe after World War two was The US bombing of Belgrade for seventy eight days to change borders of a European state. The idea was to break Serbia, to create Kosovo as an enclave, and then to install Bondisteel, which is the largest NATO base in the Balkans, in the Southwest Balkans. So The US started this under Clinton, that we will break the borders, we will illegally bomb another country. We didn't have any UN authority, this was a, quote, NATO mission to do that.
Then I know The United States went to war repeatedly, illegally, in what it did in Afghanistan, and then what it did in Iraq, and then what it did in Syria, which was the Obama administration, especially Obama and Hillary Clinton, tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad, and then what it did with NATO illegally bombing Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and then what it did in Kyiv in February 2014. I happened to see some of that with my own eyes. The US overthrew Yanukovych together with right wing Ukrainian military forces. We overthrew a president. And what's interesting, by the way, is we overthrew Yanukovych the day after the European Union representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych to have early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand down of both sides.
That was agreed. The next thing that happens is the opposition, quote unquote, says, we don't agree. They stormed the government buildings, and they deposed Yanukovych, and within hours, The United States says, yes, we support the new government. It didn't say, oh, we had an agreement, that's unconstitutional what you did. So we overthrew a government, contrary to a promise that the European Union had made.
And by the way, Russia, The United States and the EU were parties to that agreement, and The United States an hour afterwards backed the coup. Okay, so everyone's got a little bit to answer for. In 2015, the Russians did not say, We want the Donbas back. They said peace should come through negotiations. And negotiations between the ethnic Russians in the East Of Ukraine and this new regime in Kyiv led to the Minsk two agreement.
The Minsk two agreement was voted by the UN Security Council unanimously. It was signed by the government of Ukraine. It was guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. And you know what? And it's been explained to me in person.
It was laughed at inside the US government. This is after the UN Security Council unanimously accepted it. The Ukrainians said, we don't want to give autonomy to the region. Oh, but that's part of the treaty. The US told them, don't worry about it.
Angela Merkel explained in desight, in a notorious interview, after the 2022 escalation, she said, Oh, you know, we knew that Minsk II was just a holding pattern to give Ukraine time to build its strength. No. Minsk II was a UN Security Council unanimously adopted treaty that was supposed to end the war. So when it comes to who's trustworthy, who to believe, and so forth, I guess my problem, Pierce, is I know the United States government. I know it very well.
I don't trust them for a moment. I want these two sides actually to sit down in front of the whole world and say, these are the terms, then the world can judge, because we could get on paper clearly for both sides of the world. We're not going to overthrow governments anymore, the United States needs to say. We accept this agreement, The United States needs to say. Russia needs to say we're not stepping one foot farther than whatever the boundary is actually reached, and NATO's not going to enlarge.
And let's put it for the whole world to see. You know, once in a while, treaties actually hold.
Speaker 2: That they would not implement the Minsk agreements. And at the same time, they actively continued to work on creating an anti Russian platform in the territory, that is called today Ukraine. They just started creating such an enclave. They lied to us 10 times in a row about not expanding NATO.
Speaker 3: President Putin actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what what he sent us. And that was that that was a precondition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that.
reSee.it AI Summary
I reference Isaac Kappy, a Hollywood actor turned whistleblower on elite child trafficking, who died under suspicious circumstances after going public. He warned of a “dead man trigger.” Soon after, a video surfaced showing little girls in bikinis with water/oil jugs in an opulent bath house room. The room appears in Kappy’s “Dead Man’s Trigger” release and is the same spa mentioned in Sultan Bin Sulayem’s email about Epstein’s masseuse trainee.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Isaac Kappy was a hollywood actor turned whistleblower on the child traficking elite. He died under suspicious circumstances not long after going public. He warned that he had a ‘dead man trigger’ and not long after his death a video was released of little girls in Bikini's with jugs of water/oil in an opulent bath house room. This is the room in Isaac Kappy's "Dead Mans Trigger" release after his death. It’s the same spa mentioned in Sultan Bin Sulayem’s email. Where he was asking the spa to take one of Epstein’s masseuse as a trainee.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note Pepe Escobar warning that closing the Strait of Hormuz could push oil to $700/bbl, triggering an instant collapse of the global derivatives pyramid, per Goldman Sachs. Will Iran close the Straits if the Americans attack Tehran?
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
⚡️🔥🚨Pepe Escobar: If the Strait of Hormuz is closed, the barrel of oil could shoot up to 🚨$700 🚨a barrel, practically in a matter of it's the fact that the pyramid of derivatives of the global economy would instantly collapse completely, and this according to Goldman Sachs derivatives experts. Will the Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz if the Americans attack Tehran?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: It's very hard to explain, especially to a western audience, that a country under sanctions for forty three, forty four years, they have developed an extremely sophisticated military industry with indigenous solutions by scientists and engineers, Iranian scientists and engineers. Everything from this ghost fella all the way to the mega hypersonics, which are almost on the same level of the Russian hypersonic missiles. Everything indigenously developed in Iran. Yes. Katamoran warship is a nice way of putting it.
But but go Ghost Boat is much more fun, isn't it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Ghost Boat is a very, enticing, name. Last question. Will the Iranians close the Straits Of Hormuz if the Americans attack Tehran?
Speaker 0: This is very, very important, judge. I opened one of my columns with that, and I and I posted on next about it because we finally got confirmation that the parliament, the Marshallese, the Iranian parliament authorized the, Strait Of Hormuz to be blocked. But the final is not the final decision. This is binding. This means that if the order comes from the supreme leader and from the IRGC, they can close the straight anytime they want and this is constitutionally correct.
This is very, very important. This means that they are ready to close the straight if, let's say, even if they sense that they're going to be attacked because they know exactly what that means. And many of us who have been writing about that for years, I'm one of them, but Zoltan Posner when he was at the Credit Suisse, he wrote about that as well. Other analysts who were in touch with Goldman Sachs experts. Goldman Sachs, just to give an idea, by 02/1718, more or less, they had already a projection that if the Strait Of Hormuz is closed before, during, or after the the the beginning of a naval war, the barrel of oil could shoot up to $700 a barrel practically in a matter of days.
And this is not only the $7, $700 a barrel issue, is the fact that the pyramid of derivatives of the global economy would instantly collapse completely, and this according to Goldman Sachs derivatives experts. And then there was an enormous discussion that's still rolling about how many what's what's the size of this pyramid? It's indeed quadrillions of dollars. It's not even Or Yeah. The original number by the Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland was 700,000,000,000,000.
This this figure is from, well, yeah, seven or eight years ago. And then afterwards, if you talk to Persian Gulf traders, and some of them love to talk off the record, they say, look, it's in the quadrillions now, and we know that if this happens, the the global economy can cook everything can collapse in a matter of a week or ten days. So the Iranians know about that as well. And I'm sure people in the Atlanticist sphere, they also know about that. So the question, in fact, is if this information arrives to Trump's desk.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's very hard to explain, especially to a western audience, that a country under sanctions for forty three, forty four years, they have developed an extremely sophisticated military industry with indigenous solutions by scientists and engineers, Iranian scientists and engineers. Everything from this ghost fella all the way to the mega hypersonics, which are almost on the same level of the Russian hypersonic missiles. Everything indigenously developed in Iran. Yes. Katamoran warship is a nice way of putting it.
But but go Ghost Boat is much more fun, isn't it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Ghost Boat is a very, enticing, name. Last question. Will the Iranians close the Straits Of Hormuz if the Americans attack Tehran?
Speaker 0: This is very, very important, judge. I opened one of my columns with that, and I and I posted on next about it because we finally got confirmation that the parliament, the Marshallese, the Iranian parliament authorized the, Strait Of Hormuz to be blocked. But the final is not the final decision. This is binding. This means that if the order comes from the supreme leader and from the IRGC, they can close the straight anytime they want and this is constitutionally correct.
This is very, very important. This means that they are ready to close the straight if, let's say, even if they sense that they're going to be attacked because they know exactly what that means. And many of us who have been writing about that for years, I'm one of them, but Zoltan Posner when he was at the Credit Suisse, he wrote about that as well. Other analysts who were in touch with Goldman Sachs experts. Goldman Sachs, just to give an idea, by 02/1718, more or less, they had already a projection that if the Strait Of Hormuz is closed before, during, or after the the the beginning of a naval war, the barrel of oil could shoot up to $700 a barrel practically in a matter of days.
And this is not only the $7, $700 a barrel issue, is the fact that the pyramid of derivatives of the global economy would instantly collapse completely, and this according to Goldman Sachs derivatives experts. And then there was an enormous discussion that's still rolling about how many what's what's the size of this pyramid? It's indeed quadrillions of dollars. It's not even Or Yeah. The original number by the Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland was 700,000,000,000,000.
This this figure is from, well, yeah, seven or eight years ago. And then afterwards, if you talk to Persian Gulf traders, and some of them love to talk off the record, they say, look, it's in the quadrillions now, and we know that if this happens, the the global economy can cook everything can collapse in a matter of a week or ten days. So the Iranians know about that as well. And I'm sure people in the Atlanticist sphere, they also know about that. So the question, in fact, is if this information arrives to Trump's desk.
reSee.it AI Summary
I critique the Western order as not free, hypocritical and full of lies. The U.S. alone used nuclear weapons in WWII (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and, with Britain, bombed Dresden, Hamburg, and Cologne to intimidate the Soviet Union. Vietnam’s napalm and other tactics are remembered, as are Korea and spying. Leaders tolerate all this, branded as transatlantic solidarity.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
‼️‼️‼️⚡️🚨Putin Says The Western World's Order is not FREE. ‼️It is, HYPOCRITICAL and FULL of LIES. ‼️U.S. Was Only Nation to Use Nuclear Weapons in WW2 The U. S. Is the only nation in the world that used nuclear weapons twice destroying the towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let me remind you that together with the U. K. The U. S. World War two annihilate Dresden, hamburg and cologne and that there was no rationale behind that. There was no need to destroy. With air bombardment these great cities, they wanted to do that to intimidate the soviet union. That was their only goal. They left the west left a horrible history in Vietnam where they used napalm and other horrible tactics. Remember the Republic of Korea and their actions there, they keep are, there are various devices used to listen to them and spy on them. And the leaders of these countries tolerate all that and all of that is branded as transatlantic solidarity.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 presents a critical view of Western nations, arguing that for ages they claim to bring democracy and freedom to the world, but in reality they enslave and destroy. The Western world order, she says, is not free; it is hypocritical and full of lies.
She asserts that the US is the only nation in the world that used nuclear weapons twice, destroying the towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. She reminds that together with the UK, the US, during World War II, annihilated Dresden, Hamburg, and Cologne, and that there was no rationale behind that; there was no need to destroy these great cities with air bombardment, and their purpose was to intimidate the Soviet Union.
She notes a history of the West leaving a horrible trace in Vietnam where napalm and other horrific tactics were used. She references the Republic of Korea and their actions there, questioning what kind of allies the West has, noting that many of the leaders of those countries perceived as allies are followed and subjected to various devices used to listen to them and spy on them. The leaders tolerate all that, and all of that is branded as transatlantic solidarity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Western nations for ages have been saying that they bring democracy and freedom to the world, but it's entirely the opposite. Instead of democracy, they enslave. Instead of freedom, they destroy. The Western world order is not free. It is hypocritical and full of lies.
The US is the only nation in the world that used nuclear weapons twice destroying the towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let me remind you that together with the with The UK, The US, during World War two, annihilated Dresden, Hamburg, and Cologne, and that there was no rationale behind that. There was no need to destroy with air bombardment these great cities. They wanted to do that to intimidate the Soviet Union. That was their only goal.
They left the West left a horrible, history in Vietnam where they used napalm and other horrible tactics. Remember the Republic Of Korea and their actions there. They keep calling South Korea their own allies. What kind of allies are these? We know that many of the leaders of those countries that are perceived as allies of the West are being followed and, they are there are various devices used to listen to them and spy on them.
And the leaders of these countries tolerate all that. And all of that is branded as transatlantic solidarity.
reSee.it AI Summary
I argue NATO is the world’s biggest threat and was eager for a war with Russia. From 2001 to 2022 NATO moved east, surrounding Russia. The Ukraine war was provoked; Putin allegedly asked to join NATO twice and was refused. Ukraine supported NATO missions, while NATO encircles Russia and allegedly exists to cause conflicts. Critics say NATO’s purpose is to keep Russians out, Americans in, and Germans down. Some call to dissolve NATO to fix the mistake.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
🚨 Let's STOP Lying 🛑🛑🛑 The BIGGEST THREAT in the WORLD is NATO. NATO Didn't Want Russia Because NATO Wanted a WAR With Russia From 2001 all the way to 2022, 21 years, NATO moved inexorably East, surrounding Russia. And many times ... The Ukraine - Russian War Was Provoked! Tucker Carlson: Putin did not start this war. This was not, "An unprovoked invasion." "Putin just randomly went over the line into Eastern Ukraine and stole these oblasts. He stole this land that belonged to another people." That's a lie, and it's not a defense of Putin to call it everybody knows it now. The truth is that in 2001, Putin, same guy, same leader, asked the Bush Administration, in person, directly to George W. Bush, "I would like to join NATO. I would like to join the defensive alliance that exists to keep me from moving West into Western Europe." PUTIN: Two Times That We Were Ready to Join NATO. Both times we were turned down. Ukraine is the only NON-NATO nation supporting every NATO mission. In Afghanistan and Iraq Ukrainian troops are helping to support democracies. Putin says the current crisis in Ukraine is a direct result of years of aggressive NATO policies. ▶NATO has been encircling Russia since the nineties. ▶NATO exists to solve the problems created by NATO’s existence. ▶ NATO has never defended anyone, but only attacked. ▶NATO is a military Alliance that feeds on war. ▶To justify its existence, NATO constantly needs an external enemies and conflicts. ▶The purpose of the NATO alliance is "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. ▶Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The Casus Belli of the Ukraine War is NATO Enlargement, US Coup, CIA Operations All Over Ukraine. ▶Jeffrey Sachs on Trump: Until President Trump Says Publicly, "NATO Will NOT Enlarge," This War Will Continue. That's his JOB. The way to end this war is to say publicly, "NATO enlargement was a mistake, it was a provocation, it was a threat to Russia's security." ▶Jeffrey Sachs: Russia is not going to stop fighting as long as NATO enlargement is on the table. This is the basic reason why we are at war. ▶Prof. John Mearsheimer: NATO Expansion Was Really the Key. Ukraine was becoming a de facto member of NATO. ▶Larry C. Johnson A former CIA Officer: 30 Years of Provocation by the West, 30 Years of Western Efforts to Bring Ukraine INTO NATO, 30 Years of Using, Making, Ukraine a de FACTO Member of NATO by Virtue of the FACT That, They've Conducted More NATO Military Exercises in Ukraine, Than 24 Other NATO Countries Over the Last 30 years, so That's Remarkable for a Country That's NOT 🚨Not dissolving NATO in 1990 was a big mistake, and it’s time to fix that mistake.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: It is an indictment of your own leadership. And in countries across Europe, the leaders feel that way. Russia is an embarrassment to them because it is, relatively speaking, thriving. And so they all, as one, backed the Biden administration's plan to have a war with Russia. And let's stop lying.
This was not an unprovoked invasion. Putin just randomly went over the line into Eastern Ukraine and stole these oblast. He stole this land that belonged to another people. That's a total lie, and it's not a defense of Putin to call it out as a lie because it is, and everybody knows it now. The truth is that in 2001, Putin, same guy, same leader, asked the Bush administration in person directly to George W.
Bush, I would like to join NATO. I would like to join the defensive alliance that exists to keep me from moving west into Western Europe. In other words, you won. I'm joining your team. And due in part to his own limitations as a leader and due in part to the counsel that he received from Condoleezza Rice at the time, George w Bush turned down that offer and prevented Russia from joining NATO.
And the guest we're gonna speak to in a moment, if you're wondering if he has a good track record of calling future events, said at the time, this decision to turn down Vladimir Putin's it's twenty five years ago, Vladimir Putin's request to join NATO, to join the West, to all be in it together, to work together, this decision made by the Bush administration guarantees a collision with the West. We are now on a collision course. And, of course, he was absolutely right because NATO didn't want Russia because NATO wanted a war with Russia, and boy, they got it. And so from 2001 all the way to 2022, twenty one years, NATO moved inexorably east surrounding Russia. And many times, again, this is not a defense of Russia.
It's just a fact. Many times, the Russian government under Putin said, woah. Woah. Woah. Woah.
Woah. Are threatening our core national interest, which is not to have other people's missiles on our borders back off. And then in 2014, the Obama administration overthrew the government of Ukraine to put an American puppet in there, thereby sealing the fate of nations. When that happened, and Sergei Karganov said it at the time, you have just guaranteed a war in Ukraine that will destroy Ukraine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It is an indictment of your own leadership. And in countries across Europe, the leaders feel that way. Russia is an embarrassment to them because it is, relatively speaking, thriving. And so they all, as one, backed the Biden administration's plan to have a war with Russia. And let's stop lying.
This was not an unprovoked invasion. Putin just randomly went over the line into Eastern Ukraine and stole these oblast. He stole this land that belonged to another people. That's a total lie, and it's not a defense of Putin to call it out as a lie because it is, and everybody knows it now. The truth is that in 2001, Putin, same guy, same leader, asked the Bush administration in person directly to George W.
Bush, I would like to join NATO. I would like to join the defensive alliance that exists to keep me from moving west into Western Europe. In other words, you won. I'm joining your team. And due in part to his own limitations as a leader and due in part to the counsel that he received from Condoleezza Rice at the time, George w Bush turned down that offer and prevented Russia from joining NATO.
And the guest we're gonna speak to in a moment, if you're wondering if he has a good track record of calling future events, said at the time, this decision to turn down Vladimir Putin's it's twenty five years ago, Vladimir Putin's request to join NATO, to join the West, to all be in it together, to work together, this decision made by the Bush administration guarantees a collision with the West. We are now on a collision course. And, of course, he was absolutely right because NATO didn't want Russia because NATO wanted a war with Russia, and boy, they got it. And so from 2001 all the way to 2022, twenty one years, NATO moved inexorably east surrounding Russia. And many times, again, this is not a defense of Russia.
It's just a fact. Many times, the Russian government under Putin said, woah. Woah. Woah. Woah.
Woah. Are threatening our core national interest, which is not to have other people's missiles on our borders back off. And then in 2014, the Obama administration overthrew the government of Ukraine to put an American puppet in there, thereby sealing the fate of nations. When that happened, and Sergei Karganov said it at the time, you have just guaranteed a war in Ukraine that will destroy Ukraine.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note a rare UN Security Council intervention as economist Jeffrey Sachs warned Venezuela risks a legal and humanitarian crisis. He traces decades of U.S. regime-change actions, questions the legality of force and sanctions, and cites Venezuela-related coercion from 2002 onward. He urges the Council to demand an immediate US cessation, withdrawal from Venezuela, and adherence to the UN Charter, with a Special Envoy reporting back.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
#WATCH Jeffrey Sachs Blasts US Power Grab Over Venezuela, Maduro Capture at Historic UN Meeting 🇺🇸 US military interventions in foreign countries since WWII (incomplete list): 🇮🇷 Iran: 1946 🇨🇳 China: 1946 - 1949 🇬🇷 Greece: 1947 - 1949 🇮🇹 Italy: 1948 🇵🇭 Philippines: 1948 - 1954 🇰🇵 Korea: 1950 - 1953 🇮🇷 Iran: 1953 🇻🇳 Vietnam: 1954 🇬🇹 Guatemala: 1954 🇱🇧 Lebanon: 1958 🇵🇦 Panama: 1958 🇭🇹 Haiti: 1959 🇨🇩 Congo: 1960 🇻🇳 Vietnam: 1960 - 1964 🇨🇺 Cuba: 1961 🇨🇺 Cuba: 1962 🇱🇦 Laos: 1962 🇪🇨 Ecuador: 1963 🇵🇦 Panama: 1964 🇧🇷 Brazil: 1964 🇻🇳 Vietnam: 1965 - 1975 🇮🇩 Indonesia: 1965 🇨🇩 Congo: 1965 🇩🇴 Dominican Republic: 1965 🇱🇦 Laos: 1965 - 1973 🇬🇭 Ghana: 1966 🇬🇹 Guatemala: 1966 - 1967 🇰🇭 Cambodia: 1969 - 1975 🇴🇲 Oman: 1970 🇱🇦 Laos: 1971 - 1973 🇨🇱 Chile: 1973 🇰🇭 Cambodia: 1975 🇦🇴 Angola: 1976 - 1992 🇮🇷 Iran: 1980 🇱🇾 Libya: 1981 🇸🇻 El Salvador: 1981 - 1992 🇳🇮 Nicaragua: 1981 - 1990 🇱🇧 Lebanon: 1982 - 1984 🇬🇩 Grenada: 1983 🇭🇳 Honduras: 1983 - 1989 🇮🇷 Iran: 1984 🇱🇾 Libya: 1986 🇧🇴 Bolivia: 1986 🇮🇷 Iran: 1987 - 1988 🇱🇾 Libya: 1989 🇵🇭 Philippines: 1989 🇵🇦 Panama: 1989 - 1990 🇱🇷 Liberia: 1990 🇮🇶 Iraq: 1990 - 1991 🇮🇶 Iraq: 1991 - 2003 🇭🇹 Haiti: 1991 🇸🇴 Somalia: 1992 - 1994 Yugoslavia: 1992 - 1994 🇧🇦 Bosnia: 1993 - 1995 🇭🇹 Haiti: 1994 - 1996 🇭🇷 Croatia: 1995 🇨🇩 Zaire (Congo): 1996 - 1997 🇱🇷 Liberia: 1997 🇸🇩 Sudan: 1998 🇦🇫 Afghanistan: 1998 🇮🇶 Iraq: 1998 Yugoslavia: 1999 🇲🇰 Macedonia: 2001 🇦🇫 Afghanistan: 2001 🇮🇶 Iraq: 2003 🇮🇶 Iraq: 2003-present 🇭🇹 Haiti: 2004 🇸🇾 Syria: 2011-present 🇺🇦 Ukraine: 2014-present 🇻🇪 Venezuela: 2026 The UN Security Council witnessed a rare, explosive intervention as economist Jeffrey Sachs delivered a sweeping warning on Venezuela. Speaking during an emergency session, Sachs framed the crisis as a test of international law itself, not leadership politics. He traced decades of U.S. regime-change actions, questioned the legality of force and sanctions, and warned of catastrophic consequences if UN rules collapse in a nuclear age. Since 1947, United States foreign policy has repeatedly employed force, covert action, and political manipulation to bring about regime change in other countries. This is a matter of carefully documented historical record. In her book Covert Regime Change (2018), political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documents 70 attempted US regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989 alone. These practices did not end with the Cold War. Since 1989, major United States regime-change operations undertaken without authorization by the Security Council have included, among the most consequential: Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), Syria (from 2011), Honduras (2009), Ukraine (2014), and Venezuela (from 2002 onward). The methods employed are well established and well documented. They include open warfare; covert intelligence operations; instigation of unrest; support for armed groups; manipulation of mass and social media; bribery of military and civilian officials; targeted assassinations; false-flag operations; and economic warfare aimed at collapsing civilian life. These measures are illegal under the UN Charter, and they typically result is ongoing violence, lethal conflict, political instability, and deep suffering of the civilian population. The case of Venezuela The recent United States record with respect to Venezuela is clear. In April 2002, the United States knew of and approved an attempted coup against the Venezuelan government. In the 2010s, the United States funded civil society groups actively engaged in anti-government protests, notably in 2014. When the government cracked down on the protests, the US followed with a series of sanctions. In 2015, President Barrack Obama declared Venezuela to be “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” In 2017, at a dinner with Latin American leaders on the margins of the UN General Assembly, President Trump openly discussed the option of the US invading Venezuela to overthrow the government. During 2017 to 2020, the US imposed sweeping sanctions on the state oil company. Oil production fell by 75 percent from 2016 to 2020, and real GDP per capita (PPP) declined by 62 percent. The UN General Assembly has repeatedly voted overwhelmingly against such unilateral coercive measures. Under international law, only the Security Council has the authority to impose such sanctions. On 23 January 2019, the United States unilaterally recognized Juan Guaidó as “interim president” of Venezuela and on 28 January 2019 froze approximately $7 billion of Venezuelan sovereign assets held abroad and gave Guaidó authority over certain assets. These actions form part of a continuous United States regime-change effort spanning more than two decades. Recent United States global escalation In the past year, the United States has carried out bombing operations in seven countries, none of which were authorized by the Security Council and none of which were undertaken in lawful self-defense under the Charter. The targeted countries include Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and now Venezuela. In the past month, President Trump has issued direct threats against at least six UN member states, including Colombia, Denmark, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria and of course Venezuela. These threats are summarized in Annex I to this statement. What is at stake today Members of the Council are not called upon to judge Nicolás Maduro. They are not called upon to assess whether the recent United States attack and ongoing naval quarantine of Venezuela result in freedom or in subjugation. Members of the Council are called upon to defend international law, and specifically the United Nations Charter. The realist school of international relations, articulated most brilliantly by John Mearsheimer, accurately describes the condition of international anarchy as “the tragedy of great power politics.” Realism is therefore a description of geopolitics, not a solution for peace. Its own conclusion is that international anarchy leads to tragedy. In the aftermath of World War I, the League of Nations was created to end the tragedy through the application of international law. Yet the world’s leading nations failed to defend international law in the 1930s, leading to renewed global war. The United Nations emerged from that catastrophe as humanity’s second great effort to place international law above anarchy. In the words of the Charter, the UN was created “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.” Given that we are in the nuclear age, failure cannot be repeated. Humanity would perish. There would be no third chance. Measures required of the Security Council To fulfill its responsibilities under the Charter, the Security Council should immediately affirm the following actions: The United States shall immediately cease and desist from all explicit and implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela. The United States shall terminate its naval quarantine and all related coercive military measures undertaken in the absence of authorization by the Security Council. The United States shall immediately withdraw its military forces from within and along the perimeter of Venezuela, including intelligence, naval, air, and other forward-deployed assets positioned for coercive purposes. Venezuela shall adhere to the UN Charter and to the human rights protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Secretary-General shall immediately appoint a Special Envoy, mandated to engage relevant Venezuelan and international stakeholders and to report back to the Security Council within fourteen days with recommendations consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, and the Security Council shall remain urgently seized of this matter. All Member States shall refrain from unilateral threats, coercive measures, or armed actions undertaken outside the authority of the Security Council, in strict conformity with the Charter. In Closing Mr. President, Distinguished Members, Peace and the survival of humanity depend on whether the United Nations Charter remains a living instrument of international law or is allowed to wither into irrelevance. That is the choice before this Council today. Thank you.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker addressed the Security Council on the issue of whether any member state may determine Venezuela’s political future by force, coercion, or economic strangulation, stressing that the question concerns the prohibition on the threat or use of force against a state's territorial integrity or political independence under the UN Charter. The council must decide whether that prohibition is to be upheld or abandoned.
Background is offered on U.S. foreign policy, described as repeatedly using force, covert action, and political manipulation to achieve regime change since 1947. The speaker cites Lindsay O’Rourke’s documentation of 70 attempted U.S. regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, noting that such practices continued after the Cold War. Regime-change actions attributed to the United States since 1989 include Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria beginning in 2011, Honduras 2009, Ukraine 2014, and Venezuela from 2002 onward, employing methods such as open warfare, covert operations, instigation of unrest, support for armed groups, manipulation of media, bribery, targeted assassinations, false flag operations, and economic warfare. These measures are described as illegal under the UN Charter and typically yielding ongoing violence and civilian suffering.
Specific Venezuelan-related actions cited include: the April 2002 coup attempt known to the U.S.; funding of civil-society groups engaged in anti-government protests in the 2010s; sanctions following crackdowns; in 2015, President Obama labeling Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat”; in 2017, President Trump discussing invasion options at a UN General Assembly margin dinner. Between 2017 and 2020, sweeping sanctions on PDVSA reduced oil production by 75% from 2016 to 2020 and dropped real GDP per capita by 62%. The UN General Assembly is said to have repeatedly voted against unilateral coercive measures, and the speaker asserts that under international law only the Security Council may impose such measures. On January 23, 2019, the U.S. unilaterally recognized Juan Guaidó as interim president and soon after froze about $7 billion of Venezuelan sovereign assets abroad.
The actions are framed as part of a two-decade-long regime-change effort. The speaker notes U.S. bombing operations in seven countries in the past year without UN Security Council authorization or lawful self-defense, listing Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela, and cites threats by President Trump against six UN member states, including Colombia, Denmark, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela.
The speaker invokes realist theory and the League of Nations’ failure, arguing the UN was created to place international law above anarchy and urging that failure to uphold the Charter would threaten humanity. The proposed resolutions call for: the United States to cease all explicit and implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela, terminate the naval quarantine and related coercive measures without UN authorization, withdraw all military forces and forward-deployed assets from Venezuela’s vicinity, and require Venezuela to adhere to the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The secretary-general should appoint a special envoy to engage Venezuelan and international stakeholders and report back within fourteen days with Charter-consistent recommendations; the Security Council should remain urgently seized of the matter. All states should refrain from unilateral threats, coercive measures, or armed actions outside the Security Council’s authority. The speaker closes by emphasizing that the UN Charter must remain a living instrument of international law.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister president, distinguished members of the Security Council, the issue before the council today is not the character of the government of Venezuela. The issue is whether any member state, by force, coercion, or economic strangulation has the right to determine Venezuela's political future or to exercise control over its affairs. This question goes directly to article two, section four of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The council must decide whether that prohibition is to be upheld or abandoned. Abandoning it would carry consequences of the gravest kind.
Let me offer some background. Since 1947, The United States foreign policy has repeatedly employed force, covert action, and political manipulation to bring about regime change in other countries. This is a matter of carefully documented historical record. In her book, Covert Regime Change, political scientist Lindsay O'Rourke documents 70 attempted US regime change operations between 1947 and 1989 alone. These practices did not end with the Cold War.
Since 1989, major United States regime change operations undertaken without authorization by the Security Council have included among the most consequential, Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria beginning in 2011, Honduras 2009, Ukraine 2014, and Venezuela from 2002 onward. The methods employed are well established and well documented. They include open warfare, covert intelligence operations, instigation of unrest, support for armed groups, manipulation of mass and social media, bribery of military and civilian officials, targeted assassinations, false flag operations, and economic warfare. These measures are illegal under the UN Charter, and they typically result in ongoing violence, lethal conflict, political instability, and deep suffering of the civilian population. The recent US record with respect to Venezuela is also clear.
In April 2002, The US knew of and approved an attempted coup against the government. In the twenty tens, The United States funded civil society groups actively engaged in anti government protests. When the government cracked down on the protest, The US followed with a series of sanctions. In 2015, president Barack Obama declared Venezuela to be, and I quote, an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of The United States. In 2017, at a dinner with Latin American leaders on the margin of the UN General Assembly, president Trump openly discussed the option of The US invading Venezuela to overthrow the government.
During 2017 to 2020, The United States imposed sweeping sanctions on the state oil company, PDVSA. Oil production fell by 75% from 2016 to 2020, and the real GDP per capita declined by 62%. The UN General Assembly has repeatedly voted overwhelmingly against such unilateral coercive measures. Under international law, only the Security Council has the authority to impose such measures. On the 01/23/2019, The United States unilaterally recognized mister Juan Guaido as interim president, and a few days later froze approximately $7,000,000,000 of Venezuelan sovereign assets held abroad and gave the designated authority over certain of these assets.
These actions form part of a continuous US regime change effort spanning more than two decades. In the past year, The United States has carried out bombing operations in seven countries, none of which were authorized by the UN Security Council and none of which were undertaken in lawful self defense under the Charter. The targeted countries include Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and now Venezuela. In the past month, president Trump has issued direct threats against six UN member states, including Colombia, Denmark, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, and, of course, Venezuela. Members of the council are not called upon to judge Nicolas Maduro.
They are not called upon to assess whether the recent US attack and ongoing naval quarantine results in freedom or in subjugation. Members of the council are called upon to defend international law and specifically the UN Charter. The Realist School of International Relations articulated most brilliantly by John Mearsheimer accurately describes the condition of international anarchy as the tragedy of great power politics. Realism is therefore a description, not a solution for peace. Its own conclusion is that anarchy leads to tragedy.
In the aftermath of World War one, the League of Nations was created to end the tragedy through the application of international law. Yet the world's leading nations failed to defend international law in the nineteen thirties, leading to renewed global war. The United Nations emerged from that catastrophe as humanity's second great effort to place international law above international anarchy. In the words of the charter, the UN was created, quote, to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind. Given that we are in the nuclear age, failure cannot be repeated.
Humanity would perish. There would be no third chance. To fulfill its responsibilities under the charter, the Security Council should immediately affirm the following actions. The United States shall immediately cease and desist from all explicit and implicit threats or use force against Venezuela. The United States shall terminate its naval quarantine and all related coercive military measures undertaken in the absence of authorization by the UN Security Council.
The United States shall immediately withdraw its military forces from within and along the perimeter of Venezuela, including intelligence, naval, air, and other forward deployed assets positioned for coercive purposes. Venezuela shall adhere to the UN Charter and to the human rights protected in the universal declaration of human rights. The secretary general, I recommend, should immediately appoint a special envoy mandated to engage relevant Venezuelan and international stakeholders and to report back to the security council within fourteen days with recommendations consistent with the Charter, and the Security Council should remain urgently seized of this matter. All member states should refrain from unilateral threats, coercive measures, or armed actions undertaken outside the authority of the UN Security Council. In closing, mister president and distinguished members of the council, peace and the survival of humanity depend on whether the United Nations Charter remains a living instrument of international law or is allowed to wither into irrelevance.
That is the choice before this council today. Thank you very much.
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that Douglas Macgregor says US officials are preparing to evacuate Zelensky and much of his inner circle to Israel, where they would gain immunity from extradition and criminal proceedings. He claims Zelensky already has “one foot on the plane.” The context cites Ukraine’s large anti-corruption operation with ~1,000 audio recordings and Timur Mindich as a prime suspect, suggesting the leadership’s position is weak and unstable.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
😬 Revealed: Is Zelensky planning to flee to Tel Aviv? Former Pentagon advisor Douglas Macgregor has revealed that US officials are preparing to evacuate Ukrainian dictator Volodymyr Zelensky to Israel, where he would gain protection from extradition and criminal prosecution in corruption cases. The escape plan 🔶 Active preparations are underway to transport Zelensky and most of his inner circle to Israel, according to Macgregor 🔶 "I think there are preparations to fly Zelensky and much of his inner circle to Israel, where they have immunity from extradition and criminal proceedings," the former advisor stated 🔶 Macgregor emphasized that Zelensky already has "one foot on the plane" ready for evacuation Corruption scandal ♦️ On November 10, Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau announced a major special operation into energy sector corruption ♦️ The 1.5-year investigation gathered approximately 1,000 audio recordings as evidence ♦️ Businessman Timur Mindich, considered Zelensky's "wallet," is the prime suspect in the case Macgregor stressed that most observers fail to recognize how weak and unstable the Ukrainian government's position has become. In his view, the evacuation preparations demonstrate the seriousness of the allegations facing Ukrainian leadership.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript alleges that there are preparations to fly Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and much of his inner circle to Israel, where they would have immunity against extradition for criminal proceedings, and that this is what they would need after completing duties in Ukraine. The speaker asserts that Zelensky and his circle are “on … one foot right now in Ukraine and the other foot really in the door of the aircraft to fly them out.” The claim is made that people do not realize how weak and fragile the Ukrainian government is.
Additionally, the speaker reports receiving information from Eastern Europe about people coming out of basements and homes in Prokhorst (Prokhorovka? Prokhorst is presented as a location), telling the Russians, “thank god. Let’s get this over with,” and expressing a wish for the war to end.
The transcript notes that, according to the speaker, those in Eastern Ukraine and much of the population in the West desperately want an end to the war, and they realize it will only end with one outcome: “the elimination of Zelenskyy and his regime.” The statements imply a belief that increasing numbers of people are regretting the continuation of the conflict and favor a conclusion that involves removing Zelenskyy and his government.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think, there are preparations to fly Zelensky and much of his inner circle to Israel where they have immunity against extradition for criminal proceedings, and that's what they're going to need when they finish up in in Ukraine. They are they are on they've got one foot right now in Ukraine and the other foot really in the in the door of the aircraft to fly them out. People don't realize how weak and fragile this Ukrainian government is. Earlier today, I received some information from Eastern Europe, and I was told that people are coming out of the basements and homes in Prokhorst, and they're saying, you know, to the Russians, thank god. Let's get this over with.
Help help end this war. And many of them are saying what, initially back in 2022 in February, March, April were saying in Luhansk and Donetsk, what took you so long? I think increasingly the population that lives, in Eastern Ukraine and much of the population in the West desperately wants an end to this war, And they realize it will only end with with one outcome. That is the elimination of Zelenskyy and his regime.
reSee.it AI Summary
I argue the Ukraine-Russia war was provoked by NATO expansion and US policies: Brzezinski’s plan to surround Russia, the ABM withdrawal, Kosovo bombings, and the 2014 coup undermining Yanukovych. NATO’s encirclement and Ukraine’s de facto membership pushed Russia to act. A neutral Ukraine could end it; negotiators in Istanbul showed a path Europe blocked. Jeffrey Sachs and Mearsheimer cite NATO enlargement as the core provocation.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
🚨THE UKRAINE -RUSSIAN WAR WAS PROVOKED NATO DID NOT PROMOTE PEACE, NATO PROMOTED WARS How did this start? Zbigniew Brzezinski in the United States said, "We can surround Russia. We can weaken Russia. We can make Russia fall into pieces." He literally wrote in 1997, he said, "Oh, there'll be a confederation of three weak states, a European Russia, Siberian Russia, Far East Russia." This, this was a senior advisor to the US. They decided 30 years ago, we're gonna surround Russia in the Black Sea, we're going to weaken Russia, we're going to put our military all around Russia. They broke the nuclear balance and nuclear arms control framework in 2002. This was the worst move of all. United States walked out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. And the Russians said, "Oh. You, you wanna have a first strike? You'll attack us in a decapitation strike and then you'll use your anti-ballistic missile system to prevent deterrents." In 2002, the United States just walked out of the ABM Treaty and the Russians said, "Excuse me? What, what, what the hell are you doing? This is our balance." And it came in the context of NATO enlargement. It came in the context of the United States bombing Belgrade for 78 straight days in 1999 to break Serbia in two, but in Kosovo, that region broken apart from Serbia, to put the largest NATO military base in Southeastern Europe, "Camp Bondsteel", in that base. So, the Russians are saying, "Are you kidding? You bomb Belgrade, you expand NATO even though you promised not to do so, you walk out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the list goes on and on. You attack Iraq on completely phony pretenses, you launch a CIA operation to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, you send NATO to overthrow Gaddafi, late in, 2011, and you say NATO's gonna expand to Ukraine and to Georgia. You blame Russia for this? This was an America drunk with its power, saying we can do anything we want and with a plan, and the plan third-rate or fourth-rate or fifth-rate country or to break it was to turn Russia into a apart. On February 21st, 2014, three foreign ministers of the European Union negotiated with Mr. Yanukovych that he would stay in power and that there would be elections eight months later, and this was also agreed with President Putin. The next morning, a US-backed coup violently overthrew Yanukovych, and it took the United States a nanosecond to say, "We support the new government." Europe, because it's so filled with principles, "No, no, no. Yanukovych is president." No, of course it didn't say that. It said, "Whatever daddy said."So, daddy said that it's, now a new government brought in by a coup, and Europe suddenly couldn't even remember 24 hours that it negotiated an agreement with Yanukovych that he would stay in power. And they said, "No, no. He resigned." Oh, we don't think Russia should stay in Crimea anymore." It's been Russia's naval fleet since 1783. The coup is not a coincidence. The coup is to get Russia out of Sevastopol. That's the point. It was the reason why there was a Crimean War in 1853 when Britain and France said, "Get Russia out of the Black Sea." It was Brzezinski's idea in 1997. When Trump comes in in the first term, US pours in the military aid and builds up a million-person army, the largest in Europe actually. What happened when Russia invaded in February 24th, 2022? Within about a week, Zelenskyy said, "Okay, we can be neutral, we can be neutral." And the Ukrainians sent a note to the Russians, "Neutral. We, we don't need the NATO invasion. You stop fighting, we'll declare neutrality." I know in detail this story because I talked to the negotiators at length, and to the Turkish mediators, because a process started in Istanbul to have Ukraine and Russia sit down with each other. And on April 15th, they initialed a document which was almost complete. What happened? The United States and Britain walked in and told the Ukrainians, "No, you continue fighting." The European mainstream media blocks the most basic facts on all of this. This, war could have ended so many times it avoided entirely. Now Europe is in this unbelievable warmongering period led by the German chancellor, of all people and all countries, absolutely unpleasant, Merz, Macron, Starmer. In 2023, I had a conversation with President Macron. And I said, "Mr. President, this war came from NATO enlargement." He said, "You're absolutely right." I said, "Mr. President, this war could end if NATO would just be clear that it's not going to enlarge Ukraine." "You're absolutely right." Yes, nice conversation. He said exactly the opposite in public, and until today says exactly the opposite. --------------------------------------------------- *In 2001, Putin Wanted Russia to Join NATO. Two Times That We Were Ready to Join NATO. Both times we were turned down. Ukraine is the only NON-NATO nation supporting every NATO mission. In Afghanistan and Iraq Ukrainian troops are helping to support democracies. Putin says the current crisis in Ukraine is a direct result of years of aggressive NATO policies. ▶The biggest threat in the world is NATO. ▶NATO has been encircling Russia since the nineties. ▶NATO exists to solve the problems created by NATO’s existence. ▶ NATO has never defended anyone, but only attacked. ▶NATO is a military Alliance that feeds on war. ▶To justify its existence, NATO constantly needs an external enemies and conflicts. ▶The purpose of the NATO alliance is "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. ▶Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The Casus Belli of the Ukraine War is NATO Enlargement, US Coup, CIA Operations All Over Ukraine. ▶Jeffrey Sachs on Trump: Until President Trump Says Publicly, "NATO Will NOT Enlarge," This War Will Continue. That's his JOB. The way to end this war is to say publicly, "NATO enlargement was a mistake, it was a provocation, it was a threat to Russia's security." ▶Jeffrey Sachs: Russia is not going to stop fighting as long as NATO enlargement is on the table. This is the basic reason why we are at war. ▶Prof. John Mearsheimer: NATO Expansion Was Really the Key. Ukraine was becoming a de facto member of NATO. ▶Larry C. Johnson A former CIA Officer: 30 Years of Provocation by the West, 30 Years of Western Efforts to Bring Ukraine INTO NATO, 30 Years of Using, Making, Ukraine a de FACTO Member of NATO by Virtue of the FACT That, They've Conducted More NATO Military Exercises in Ukraine, Than 24 Other NATO Countries Over the Last 30 years, so That's Remarkable for a Country That's NOT 🚨Not dissolving NATO in 1990 was a big mistake, and it’s time to fix that mistake.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
reSee.it AI Summary
I note a stream of posts arguing NATO expanded eastward provoked Ukraine conflict, blaming the US, global elites, and NATO for coups, regime change, and resource grabs. Minsk II overlooked, 2014 Maidan story told, and calls to disband NATO. Jeffrey Sachs and others challenge mainstream narratives, claiming the war is about geopolitical and financial power, not just Ukraine.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Jeffrey Sachs Killed Biden, Zelensky and Kamala!!! https://t.co/INb5j8dLiN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Checklist for summary approach:
- Identify and preserve the core causation chain from 1990 to the present.
- Retain all direct claims about NATO expansion, treaties, regime changes, and key US actions.
- Highlight unique or surprising elements (intercepted calls, personal connections, blunt quotes).
- Exclude repetition, filler, and off-topic discussions.
- Do not judge the claims; present them as stated, without added qualifiers.
- Translate any non-English nuances into concise English where needed.
- Aim for 395–494 words.
According to the speaker, the Ukraine war is not a Putin-initiated attack as framed by common narratives, but a long sequence beginning in 1990. James Baker (Secretary of State) told Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move eastward if Germany unified; Gorbachev agreed. The speaker asserts the US then “cheated” with a 1994 Clinton plan to expand NATO to Ukraine, arguing that neoconservatives took power and NATO enlargement began in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Russia initially cared little, seeing no direct border threat beyond Kaliningrad, and NATO’s bombing of Belgrade in 1999 aggravated Moscow.
Putin’s leadership is described as initially pro-European; he even considered joining NATO when a mutually respectful relationship existed. After 9/11, Russia supported the US in counterterrorism, but two decisive later actions altered it. In 2002 the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which the speaker says triggered US missile deployments in Eastern Europe—Aegis systems—prompting Russia to fear a decapitation strike from missiles near Moscow. He claims the US then invaded Iraq in 2003 on phony pretenses. In 2004–2005 a “soft regime change operation” in Ukraine (the first color revolution) installed leaders connected to US interests; the speaker recalls advising Ukraine’s government in the early 1990s and knows Yushchenko personally.
Yanukovych won Ukraine’s 2009 election and pursued neutrality; the US pressed NATO expansion despite Ukrainian public preference for neutrality amid ethnic divides. On 22 February 2014, the US actively participated in overthrowing Yanukovych, with a leaked call between Victoria Nuland and Jeffrey Pyatt discussing a preferred next government (names like Yatsenyuk/Yats, and influence from Biden) and vowing Western support; the speaker asserts the Americans told Yanukovych to fight on, promising “we’ve got your back” but “we don’t have your front,” pushing Ukraine into front lines and contributing to a high death toll—“six hundred thousand deaths now of Ukrainians since Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell them to be brave.”
The speaker contends the war is misrepresented as a madman invading Europe and criticizes it as “bogus, fake history” and a PR narrative by the US government; he claims NYT suppressed his commentary and argues the US ignores prudence in favor of open-ended enlargement. He cautions against pursuing China and Taiwan, warning about nuclear risk if a power challenges the US. He notes Putin’s 2021 security proposal to bar NATO enlargement, the White House’s rejection of negotiations, and NATO’s “open door” stance, which he decries as unstable. The narrative concludes with a focus on preventing further escalation and avoiding a nuclear confrontation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me just explain in two minutes the Ukraine war. This is not an attack by Putin on Ukraine in the way that we are told every day. This started in 1990. 02/09/1990, James Baker the third, our secretary of state, said to Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch eastward if you agree to German unification, basically ending World War two. And, Gorbachev said that's very important.
Yes. NATO doesn't move, and we agreed to German unification. The US then cheated on this already starting in 1994 when Clinton signed off on a, basically, a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine. This is when the so called neocons took power, and, Clinton was the first agent of this. And the expansion of NATO started in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic.
At that point, Russia didn't much care. There was no border other than with the Kernigsberg, but other than that, there was no direct threat. Then, The US, led the bombing of Serbia in 1999. That was bad, by the way, because that was a use of NATO to bomb a European capital, Belgrade, seventy eight straight days to break the country apart. The Russians didn't like that very much.
But Putin became president. They swallowed it. They complained, but even Putin started out pro European, pro American actually asked, maybe we should join NATO, when there was still the idea of some kind of mutually respectful relationship. Then nine eleven came, then came, Afghanistan, and the Russians said, yeah, we'll support you. We understand to root out terror.
But then came two other decisive actions. In 02/2002, The United States unilaterally walked out of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. This was probably the most decisive event never discussed in this context, but what it did was trigger The US putting in missile systems in Eastern Europe that Russia views as a dire direct threat to national security by making possible a decapitation strike of missiles that are a few minutes away from Moscow. And we put in two Aegis missile systems. We say it's defense.
Russia says, how do we know it's not Tomahawk nuclear tipped missiles in your silos? You've told us we have nothing to do with this. And so we walked out of the ABM treaty unilaterally in 02/2002, and then in 02/2003, we invaded Iraq on completely phony pretenses as I've explained. In February, 04/05, we engaged in a soft regime change operation in Ukraine, the so called first color revolution. It put in office somebody that I knew and was, I was friends with, and I'm kind of distantly friends with the president Yushchenko, because I was an adviser to the Ukrainian government in nineteen ninety three, ninety four, ninety five.
And then The US had its dirty hands in this. It should not meddle in other countries' elections. But in 02/2009, Yanukovych won the election, and he became president in 2010 on the basis of neutrality for Ukraine. That calmed things down because The US was pushing NATO, but the people of Ukraine on the opinion polls didn't even wanna be a NATO. They knew that the country is divided between ethnic Ukrainian, ethnic Russian.
What do we want with this? We wanna stay away from your problems. So in 02/22/2014, The United States participated actively in the overthrow of Yanukovych, A typical US regime change operation, have no doubt about it. And the Russians did us a favor. They intercepted a really ugly call between Victoria Nuland, my colleague at Columbia University now.
And if you know her name and what she's done, have sympathy for me. Really. Between her and, The US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeffrey Piot, who's a senior state department official till today, and they talked about regime change. They said, who's gonna be the next government? Why don't we pick this one?
No. Klitschko shouldn't go in. It should be Yat senuk. Yes. It was Yotsenok, and we'll get we'll get the big guy, Biden, to come in and do an attaboy, they say, you know, pat them on the back.
It's great. So they made the new government, and I happened to be invited to go there soon after that, not knowing any of the background, and then some of it was in a very ugly way explained to me after I arrived how The US had participated in this. All of this is to say, The US then said, okay. Now NATO's really gonna enlarge, and Putin kept saying, stop. You promised no NATO enlargement.
It's been by the way, I forgot to mention in 02/2004, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, seven more countries in the not one inch eastward. And then okay. It's a long story, but The US kept rejecting the basic idea, don't expand NATO to Russia's border in a context where we're putting in goddamn missile systems after breaking a treaty. 2019, we walked out of the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty. In 2017, we walked out of the JCPOA, the treaty with Iran.
This is the partner. This is the trust building. In other words, it's completely reckless US foreign policy. On 12/15/2021, Putin put on the table a draft Russia US security agreement. You can find it online.
The basis of it is no NATO enlargement. I called the White House that next week after that, begging them, take the negotiations. Putin's offered something. Avoid this war. Oh, Jeff, there's not gonna be a war.
Announce that NATO's not gonna enlarge. Oh, don't worry. NATO's not gonna enlarge. I said, oh, you're gonna have a war over something that's not gonna happen? Why don't you announce them?
And he said, no. No. Our policy is an open door. This is Jake Sullivan. Our policy is an open door policy.
Open door for NATO enlargement. That is under the category of bullshit, by the way. You don't have your right to put your military bases anywhere you want and expect peace in this world. You have to have some prudence. There's no such thing as an open door that we're gonna be there, and we're gonna put our missile systems there, and that's our right.
There's no right to that. We declared in 1823, Europeans don't come to the Western Hemisphere. That's the Monroe Doctrine, the whole Western Hemisphere after all. Okay. Anyway, they turned down the negotiations.
Then the special military operation started. And five days later, Zelensky says, okay. Okay. Neutrality. And then the Turks said, we'll we'll mediate this.
And I flew to Ankara to discuss it with the Turkish negotiators because I wanted to hear exactly what was going on. So what was going on was they reached an agreement with a few odds and ends. And then The United States and Britain said, no way. You guys fight on. We got your back.
We don't have your front. You're all gonna die. But we got your back as we kept pushing them into the front lines. That's six hundred thousand deaths now of Ukrainians since Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell them to be brave. Absolutely ghastly.
So when you think about your question, we have to understand we're not dealing with, as we're told every day, with this madman like Hitler coming at us and violating this and violating that, and he's gonna take over Europe. This is complete bogus, fake history that is a purely PR narrative of the US government, and it doesn't stand up at all to anyone that knows anything. And if you try to say a word of this, I got completely cut out of the New York Times back in 2022 after writing my whole life columns for them. Oh, I'd send this. Okay.
And by the way, online, it's not even space. You know, there's no limit. They could publish 700 words. They would not publish, since then, 700 words for me about what I saw with my own eyes about what this war is about. They won't do it.
We're playing games here. So, god forbid, a nuclear power comes at us. I don't know what's gonna happen, but we came at them, and we should stop going after China and Taiwan.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Confessions of a U.S. Senator Richard Hayden Black We staged a coup d'état in Ukraine. Zelensky is a PUPPET. He does what he is told to do, when he is told to do it. He is entirely and completely a product of the media. https://t.co/iHUb92wF7J
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims: "we overthrew, Iraq with military force coming in from across the globe to overthrow Iraq." "We have gone in, and we have overthrown, Ukraine, with military force from the other side of the globe." "and, we we were the source of both of these conflicts, and it's very unfortunate because the American people are not are not like this." "It's just it's the foreign policy establishment." "Zelensky is a is a puppet." "He does what he is told, when he is told, and they you know, the the people who control him decided that if they put him in a green T shirt, he would look like a hero, so they they had him wear a green T shirt." "This is a fellow who is a comedy actor." "He is a creation of the media out of whole cloth." "He he really didn't exist as as anything until the media created an image of him, very much like a like a play actor."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I guess you could say in the sense that we we overthrew, Iraq with military force coming in from across the globe to overthrow Iraq. We have gone in, and we have overthrown, Ukraine, with military force from the other side of the globe. And, we we were the source of both of these conflicts, and it's very unfortunate because the American people are not are not like this. It's just it's the foreign policy establishment. Zelensky is a is a puppet.
He does what he is told, when he is told, and they you know, the the people who control him decided that if they put him in a green T shirt, he would look like a hero, so they they had him wear a green T shirt. This is a fellow who is a comedy actor. He is a creation of the media out of whole cloth. He he really didn't exist as as anything until the media created an image of him, very much like a like a play actor.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Jeffrey Sachs: NATO Expansion Provoked the Ukraine War https://t.co/H9B5Ohm430
Video Transcript AI Summary
Let me just say that all the major conflicts can be ended straightforwardly. The Ukraine war the causes of the Ukraine war is NATO enlargement, US coup, CIA operations all over Ukraine, even the New York Times reported that one a couple of months ago. We've got to stop being in Russia's face. They know all of it. They know who paid for the Maidan demonstrators. They've got everything. We've got to stop the provocations. And yes, by the way, there was no Russian demand for territory of any kind. Crimea, they wanted a twenty five year lease, which they negotiated, president Putin, and president Yanukovych. Not territory, not a claim. No NATO, you're not getting that base. In 2021, the war could have been avoided easily by president Biden saying to president Putin, NATO will not expand to Ukraine, and I will say so. I called Jake Sullivan. He teaches at Harvard. It's all consistent, after you fail in Washington, and I said, Jake, avoid a war. There’s not gonna be a war. Open door policy for NATO. Ukraine can be stopped when the president of The United States says publicly NATO will not enlarge.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me just say that all the major conflicts can be ended straightforwardly. The Ukraine war the causes of the Ukraine war is NATO enlargement, US coup, CIA operations all over Ukraine, even the New York Times reported that one a couple of months ago. We've got to stop being in Russia's face. They know it. They know all of it.
They were so kind as to post Victoria Nuland's call with Jeffrey Piatt choosing the next government. Thank you. They know all of it. They know who paid for the Maidan demonstrators. They've got everything.
We've got to stop the provocations. And yes, by the way, there was no Russian demand for territory of any kind. Crimea, they wanted a twenty five year lease, which they negotiated, president Putin, and president Yanukovych. Not territory, not a claim. Even after the coup, Russia took back Crimea.
No NATO, you're not getting that base. But even when it came to the Donbas, they just said autonomy in this post coup anti Russia regime. The United States said no to that one too. And incidentally, I'll share with you just one moment. In 2021, the war could have been avoided easily by president Biden saying to president Putin, NATO will not expand to Ukraine, and I will say so.
And I called Jake Sullivan. He teaches at Harvard. It's all consistent, after you fail in Washington, and I said, Jake, avoid a war. Stop NATO enlargement, it's ridiculous. It's useless.
Would you like it on the Rio Grande in Mexico, a military Mex a Russian military base? Said Jeff, we have an open door policy for NATO. Said, Jake, give me a break. Open door policy. I repeated the Monroe Doctrine to no effect, and I said, Jake, stop the NATO enlargement.
He said to me, Jeff, NATO's not going to enlarge to Ukraine. I said, Jake, we're gonna have a war over something that's not gonna happen? Why didn't you say so? He said to me, don't worry, there's not gonna be a war. Honestly these people are not clever.
They're not clever. What they're doing makes no sense, They don't know what they're doing. We don't know when Biden checked out, maybe already then, but in any event, they're not smart. They're getting us into trouble so we could make peace in Ukraine. Tomorrow was a yesterday was a hint of it, but you could see the president is so everything about our media, about the congress, about the military industrial complex, he whether he has the skill or not, don't know.
But if he were a communicator, and had the guts, and what he should stand up and explain to the American people this was about NATO enlargement, we're not gonna do it. And that would be the end. But he can't quite, he says it privately I'm sure, but not publicly. Why? Because we're still trapped.
We're trapped as Eisenhower told us we're trapped. And all these think tanks up and down the East Coast are bought the same way. It's all phony, everything you hear about it, the data there was a report recently about Russia's casualties being x times that of Ukraine by one of the Washington think tanks, so I looked at the it was absurd, so I looked at the footnote, where'd that come from? The footnote came from the Ministry of Defense of Britain, I was already suspicious. So then I went to the Ministry of Defense of Britain, and after a little maneuvering, tracked down its source.
It was Ukraine. Oh my god. They get paid for this. Of course, it's paid propaganda. Okay.
Ukraine can be stopped when the president of The United States says publicly NATO will not enlarge. He could add parentheses, it was a bad idea. If he wants, he could say, it wasn't my idea, was their terrible ideas. He could say Obama did the coup, whatever he wants to say, but if he told the treaty the war will end.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
The World’s Top Diplomat Sergey Lavrov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, addresses the general debate of the 78th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations (New York, 19 - 26 September 2023). https://t.co/PLuF7ApdMB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker portrays a world at a crossroads, with irreversible changes and a new multipolar order led by the global majority against neocolonial control. He brands the West as 'an empire of lies' and accuses it of failing to fulfill commitments, citing NATO expansion toward Russia’s borders and 'assurances' broken. He highlights joint US–NATO nuclear scenarios, space and information dominance, and alliance networks AUKUS and the Quad, warning that 'the Monroe doctrine into a global one' is underway. The speech urges reform of global governance, noting that 'the democratic principle of the sovereign equality of states' must guide a fair UN and expanded Security Council representation, end unilateral coercive measures, and decolonization. It cites climate finance promises of 2009 ($100,000,000,000 annually) versus '$170,000,000,000' spent on Kyiv; calls for dialogue on Palestine–Israel, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Kosovo.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister president, ladies and gentlemen, in the statements of many previous speakers, the idea that our shared planet is experiencing irreversible changes was mentioned right in front of our eyes. There is a new world order being born. Our future is being shaped by a struggle, a struggle between the global majority in favor of a fairer distribution of global benefits and civilized diversity, and between the few who wield near colonial methods of subjugation in order to maintain their domination, which is slipping through their hands. The collective West has a calling card, and it has long been to reject the principle of equality and their total inability to reach agreement. Being used to looking down at the rest of the world, Americans and Europeans make all sorts of promises and they take on commitments into Aliyah, written ones and legally binding ones, and then they just don't fulfill them.
As president Putin pointed out, the West is one that is truly an empire of lies. Russia, like many countries, knows about this firsthand. In 1945, when we, along with Washington Washington and London, together were vanquishing the enemy on the front in the second World War, our allies in the anti Hitler coalition were already making plans for a thinkable military operation. That's what it was called against the Soviet Union. Four years later in 1949, the Americans drafted a drop shot operation to make mass scale nuclear strikes on the USSR.
These ghastly senseless ideas did remain on paper. The USSR, created its own weaponized retaliation. It took the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, when the world was on the brink of nuclear war, for the idea of deploying it and the illusion of victory stopped being the basis of the military planning strategy of The US. At the end of this Cold War, the Soviet Union plays a decisive role in reuniting Germany and agreed upon parameters for the new security architect in Europe. Furthermore, the Soviet and then the Russian leadership was given concrete political assurances regarding the non expansion of the NATO military alliance to the East.
The relevant records of these negotiations are both in our and western archives, and they're in open access. But these assurances by western leaders were just deception. They in no way intended to uphold them. Furthermore, they were never bothered by the fact that by expanding NATO towards Russia's borders, they violated official commitments that were made at the highest level in the OSCE, commitments not to strengthen their own security to the detriment of the security of others and not to permit a military political domination in Europe of any country, group of countries, or organization. In 02/2021, our proposals to conclude treatment the treaties rather on mutual security guarantees in Europe were rudely rejected without any change to the status of Ukraine being outside the alliance.
The West continued its ongoing militarization of Russophobic Kyiv regime that was brought to power as a result of a bloody coup and start to to use this to wage a hybrid war against our country. Something that has been unprecedented since the end the Cold War was a recent number of joint exercises between The US and their European NATO allies into Allied to develop scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons in the Russian Federation. The stated aim of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia and once and for all, this became crystal clear, the fact that they are clearly hell bent on their own impunity, and they are bereft of their basic desire for self preservation. Headed up by Washington native countries not only are expanding and modernizing their offensive capabilities, but also are shifting the arms into space and the information sphere. A new dangerous manifestation of the expansionism was extending the alliance's area of responsibility to the entire Eastern side of the world using the pernicious slogan of the indivisibility of security of the Eurasian and Indo Asian Pacific region.
To this aim, Washington is creating its subordinate military political community alliances like AUKUS, the triker of the US, Japan, and The Republic Of Korea, the Quartet, Tokyo, Seoul, Canberra, and Wellington, are pushing the participants of these structures to practical cooperation with NATO. This is bringing its infrastructure into the Pacific area. It is obvious that such efforts are targeted against Russia and China. And on the collapse of the inclusive regional architecture of ASEAN, this runs the risk of creating a new explosive hot bags of geopolitical tension in addition to that which is hotting up very significantly around Europe. One certainly has the impression that The US and these Western collective that is fully subordinate to it had decided to turn the Monroe doctrine into a global one.
These ideas are totally illusory. They're extreme, but the Pax Americana will not stop it. The global major minority, rather, is doing all it can to put the brakes on the acceleration of the natural course of event. The Vilnius declaration of NATO on strengthening partnership between Russia and China has been characterized as a threat to NATO. Speaking to his ambassadors abroad, president Macron said he was really concerned about the expansion of BRICS, deeming that this shows that it, quote, complicates the situation in the international sphere in order to run and it runs the risk of weakening the West, in particular Europe.
A review of the world order is underway as is of its principles and is undermining the way that, the West is working. This is the end of that quote. So here's a revelation. If anybody wants to meet without us, become closer without us, or without our consent, then that poses a threat. The pushing of NATO into the Asia Pacific region is something good, but the expansion of BRICS is dangerous.
However, this logic is inexorable. The main trend has become for the global majority to strengthen, their national interest, sovereignty, their traditions, their culture, and their way of life. They don't want to live under anybody's yoke anymore. They want to make friends between themselves, solely on an equal footing and for mutual benefit. And such organizations such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are on the rise, and they are defending their rightful role in forming objectively our multipolar architecture.
Perhaps for the first time since 1945 when the UN was established, there is now a chance for genuine democratization of global affairs. This inspires optimism in for all those who believe in the rule of law internationally and who want to see the revival of the UN as a central coordinating body for global politics, a body where decisions are made about how to reach decisions together, having a fair balance of interest. For Russia, it is clear that there's no other option. However, The US and its subordinate Western collective are continuing to fuel conflicts, which artificially divide humanity into hostile blocks and hamper the achievement of overall aims. They're doing everything they can to prevent the formation of a genuine multipolar fair world order.
They are trying to force the world to play according to their own self centered rules. I would like to urge Western politicians and diplomats once again to carefully reread the UN Charter. The cornerstone of the world order established at the end of the second world war is the democratic principle of the sovereign equality of states, large and small, irrespective of their form of government, of their domestic political and socioeconomic structures. However, the West still believes that it is superior to everybody else in light of what was said, the pernicious statement by the EU head of diplomacy, mister Barello, namely that Europe is a blossoming garden and the rest is a jungle. He's not bothered by the fact that in the garden, there's rampant Islamophobia and other forms of intolerance to traditional values for of all world, religions, the burnings of the Koran, discriminate of the Torah, persecutions of orthodox clergy, and disdain for the feelings of believers are very commonplace in Europe.
A gross violation of the principle of sovereign equality is the use by the West of unilateral coercive measures. Countries which victims of these illegal sanctions, and there are an increasing number of them, are well aware that restrictions harm, first and foremost, the most vulnerable strata of society. They provoke crises in the food and energy markets. We continue to insist on a swift and full cessation of The US's unprecedented inhumane trade and economic financial blockade of Cuba and for a lifting of the absurd decision to declare Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism. Washington must, without any preconditions, abandon its policy of economic suffocation of Venezuela.
We call for the lifting of unilateral sanctions by The US and the EU against Syria that openly undermine its right to development. Any measures that circumvent the UN and that a cursive measures must be ended as must the West's weaponized practice of manipulating the Security Council sanctioned policies to exert pressure on those they don't like, something which clearly demonstrates the West's self centeredness in their attempts to Ukraineize the international agenda, by pushing onto the back burner a number of unregulated unsettled, rather, unresolved regional conflicts or crises, rather, that many have been in place for decades now. The need in The Middle East really depend on solving the protracted Palestinian Israeli conflict based on the UN resolutions and the Arab peace initiative. The Palestinians, for more than seventy years now, have been awaiting their solemnly, made promise to them of having their own state. However, the fact that the Americans are monopolizing the mediation process means that they're doing everything they can not to allow this.
We call for a pooling of efforts of all responsible countries to create conditions to resume direct Palestinian Israeli negotiations. We are pleased that the League of Arab States has got its second wind. It's stepping up its role in the region. We welcome the return of Syria to the Arab family, and we welcome the start of the normalization process between Damascus and Ankara, which we are shoring up with our Iranian colleagues. All these positive signs are backed up by the Astana format, which foster, the Syrian settlement.
We do hope that with the assistance of the UN, the Libyans can, prepare for general elections in their long suffering country that, for more than ten years, has not got back on its feet after aggression that destroyed their state and opened the floodgates for the spread of terrorism to the Sahara Sahel region and waves of millions of illegal migrants to Europe and other areas of the world. The analysts have said, as soon as Muhammad Gaddafi abandoned his military nuclear program, he was destroyed. Thus, the West has created astonishing risk for the entire nuclear nonproliferation regime. We're concerned by Washington and its Asian, allies whipping up hysteria on the Korean Peninsula, where the strategic capabilities of The US are building up. The Russia Chinese initiative to deem humanitarian political challenges as a priority have been rejected.
There's been a tragic development of the situation in Sudan. It's nothing other than the impact of the failed Western experiment to export its liberal and democratic dogma to the country. We support the constructive initiatives to speed up regulation or rather settlement of the domestic Sudanese conflict by providing, assistance to have direct dialogue between the warring parties. When we see the nervous relation of the West to recent events in Africa, in particular, in Niger and Gabon, one cannot fail to recall how Washington and Brussels responded to the bloody coup in Ukraine in February 2014, a day after agreement was reached on settling under EU guarantees, the issues. But, unfortunately, the opposition just trampled on this.
The US and its allies, supported the coup, hailing it as a demonstration of democracy. We cannot fail to be concerned by the ongoing deteriorating situation in the Serbian province of Kosovo. NATO supplying arms to the Kosovo and helping them to establish an army grossly violates the key resolution of the Security Council twelve forty four. The whole world can see how the in the Balkans, the sad story of the Minsk agreements in Ukraine is being repeated. There, I recall, there was stipulation for a special status for the republics in Donbas.
However, Kyiv openly sabotaged this with the support of the West. Just now as well, the EU does not want to force its Kosovo proteges to implement the agreements that were made between Belgrade and Pristina in 2013 to set up a community of Serbian municipalities of Coffer Kosovo. This would have special rules regarding their language and their traditions. In both cases, the EU act as a guarantor for these agreements. Apparently, they share the same face fate.
You just need to look at the sponsor, and you see the result. Now Brussels is imposing its mediation services, so called mediation services on Azerbaijan and Armenia along with Washington, and this is and and in fact, Yerevan Mbaku actually did settle the situation. So the time has come for mutual trust building. There are Russian troops who will certainly help this. Now talking about decisions of the international community that remain on paper, we call for a completion once a rule of the process of decolonization.
This is in line with a g o GA resolutions, and we want an end to all colonial practices. A vivid illustration of the rules according to which the West wants us all to live is the fate of the commitments that were made in 2009 to provide developing countries with a $100,000,000,000 annually to finance climate mitigation programs. If you compare that fate with the unkept promises and its unkept promises with the sums that The US, NATO, and the EU has spent on supporting the racist regime in Kyiv according to reports, $170,000,000,000 since February 2022, you'll understand what the enlightened West really thinks. It is high time for a reform of the existing global governance architecture. Architecture.
There it should be no more artificially holding bag of the redistribution of voting quotas in the IMF and the World Bank. The West must recognize the real economic and financial clout of the countries of this global South. There's, it's important also to unblock the work of the w two disputes body. There's an increasing need to expand the composition of the Security Council solely through eradicating underrepresentation in the composition from the global majority, so countries from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It's important that the new members of the Security Council, both permanent and nonpermanent, are able to use their authority in their own regions as well and in global organizations such as the nonline movement, g seventy seven, and the OIC.
It is high time to look at fairer ways of making up the UN secretariat. One criteria that's been in place for many years or rather, all the criteria that have been in place for many years do not reflect the actual clout of states in global affairs and artificially ensure excessive dominance of citizens of NATO and EU countries. This disproportionate situation is made even worse by the system of permanent contracts, which links people to positions in host countries of headquarters of international organizations, the overwhelming majority of which are in the capitals that promote Western policies. A new type of UN reform is needed, whether I know leaders and followers or teachers and students, and when all questions are resolved based on consensus reflecting of and of interest. For example, this is really borne by the BRICS, which has expanded its authority, in particular, following the Johannesburg summit.
And for also at the regional level, there been a clear renaissance of the African Union, CELAC, the Ligueirao states, the GCC, and other structures in Eurasia. A harmonization of integration processes is underway as part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, ASEAN, the CSTO, the Eurasian Economic Community, and the CIS, the Chinese Belt and Road Project. Natural formations for a greater Eurasian partnership is underway as well. This is open to all associations and countries of our shared continent without exception. These positive trends, unfortunately, are being undermined by increasingly aggressive policies by the West and their attempts to maintain their dominance.
It is in the common interest to avoid a fragmentation of the world into isolated trade blocks and macro regions. But if The US and its allies do not want to negotiate on making global processes free or or fair rather and equal, the rest will have to draw their own conclusions and will have to make their own socioeconomic and technological development not dependent on their neocolonial instincts of the former of their former neocolonial powers. The main problem with the West the main problem lies with the West because developing countries are prepared to negotiate, for example, in the g twenty, and we see clearly that the g twenty must and should avoid politicization. It should be able to be engaged in methods to develop mutually acceptable ways of governing the world economy and finances. It's important to have dialogue, and we mustn't miss this opportunity.
All these trends must fully be borne in mind by the UN secretariat. Its statutory aim is to seek consent from all member states within the UN and not on the sidelines thereof. The UN was founded following the well, second World War, and any attempts to revise this would undermine the foundations of the UN as the representative of country that made a significant contribution to defeating fascism and the Japanese militarism. I would like to draw attention to the egregious phenomenon of rehabilitating native rehabilitating Nazis and collaborators in Europe, in particular in Ukraine and the Baltics. A particularly concerning fact is for the first time last year, there was a GA resolution to combat the glorification of net Nazism, but for the first time, this was voted against by Germany, Italy, and Japan.
This regrettable fact calls into question the true repentance of these states for the mass crimes carried out against hem humanity by them during World War two. It also runs counter to the conditions under which they were accepted into the UN as fully fledged members. We strongly urge you to pay particular attention to this metamorphose that runs counter to the position of the global majority and to the principles of the UN Charter. Mister president, today, humanity, as it has done in the past, is at the crossroads. It is entirely up to us how history will play out.
It is in our shared interest to prevent a downward spiral into large scale war and to prevent the final collapse of the mechanisms for international cooperation that were put in place by our predecessors. The SG put forward initiative next year to hold a summit of the future. This can only be successful by having a fair balance of interests of all member states with the respect of the intergovernmental character or organization. At our meeting on the September 21, the members of the group of friends in defense of the charter actively discussed the opportunities for achieving this. As Antonio Guterres said at the press conference on the eve of this session, and I quote, if we want peace and prosperity based on equality and solidarity, then leaders have a particular responsibility to achieve compromise when designing our common future for our common good, end of quote.
This is an excellent response to those who divide the world up into democraties democracies and autocracies and dictate their neocolonial rules to others. Thank you very much.
reSee.it AI Summary
In an interview, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko emphasized the necessity of nuclear weapons for Belarus, stating that we are currently a target for Western countries. He mentioned that having nuclear capabilities allows for quick coordination of a strike with Russia.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
What's the problem with coordinating a strike? President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko gave an interview to Olga Skabeeva in which he noted the need for nuclear weapons for Belarus. Speaking about the Western countries, Lukashenko said: "We are a target for them now. And possession of nuclear weapons gives us a chance to defend ourselves. It is possible to coordinate a nuclear strike with Russia almost immediately, without wasting time.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Разговор о границе: участники считают, что граница «на замке» и «враг не пройдет совершенно точно». Обсуждают размещение ядерного оружия: Speaker 0: «Верни мне ядерное оружие. Не надо стратегически, а мне зачем?». Он говорит, что «Тактического вполне достаточно. Искандер бьёт 500 километров и больше. А у него боеголовка ядерная», и добавляет: «Мне, говорит, нам легче поставить.» По словам говорящих, они получили от России «бомбы и ракеты»; «бомбы в три раза мощнее, чем в Хиросиме»; «мгновенно погибло 250 от одного удара… одна бомба в три раза мощнее», и это может привести к «под миллион человек погибнет сразу». Планы: хранилища в Беларуси рассредоточить, «у нас их было много... рассредоточим», и продолжать восстанавливать. Они договорились: «он позвонил, я снял трубку в любой момент, даже вот сейчас»; «пусть враги, Оля, трепещут.»
Discussion about the border: participants believe the border is 'locked' and 'the enemy will not pass at all.' They discuss placing nuclear weapons: Speaker 0 says, 'Return to me the nuclear weapon. Not strategic, but why do I need it?'. He says, 'Tactical is quite enough. Iskander hits 500 kilometers and more. And it has a nuclear warhead,' and adds, 'For me, he says, it's easier for us to place [them].' According to the speakers, they received from Russia 'bombs and missiles'; 'bombs three times more powerful than Hiroshima'; '250 instantly died from one strike… one bomb three times more powerful,' and this could lead to 'nearly a million people dead at once.' Plans: distribute storage sites in Belarus, 'we had many of them... we'll disperse,' and continue restoring. They agreed: 'he called, I picked up the phone in any moment, even now'; 'let the enemies, Olya, tremble.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Александр,
Speaker 1: я
Speaker 0: вот боевик такой!
Speaker 1: -С вами наконец-то лично познакомились.
Speaker 0: -Почему бы ты не приезжала, не приезжала.
Speaker 1: -Ну вот я приехала. Спасибо за приглашение. -Спасибо. -Ну, давайте, мы вчера были на границе.
Speaker 0: -Да, я знаю.
Speaker 1: -Да, нам все показали.
Speaker 0: -Потом ты говоришь, 6400 хотела опробовать или нет?
Speaker 1: -Я, честно сказать, опробовала. Мы пришли к выводу, что граница на замке. И враг не пройдет совершенно точно.
Speaker 0: -Старый пограничник.
Speaker 1: -Вам вообще самому как было принять это решение? Разместить ядерное оружие. Вы же будете как цель. Как вы это для себя сформулировали? Вот вы сели вечером и как?
Speaker 0: -Вот сел я и думаю: буду я целью. А сейчас я кто? Сейчас я ещё большая цель. Цель ещё такая, что мне ответить сложно. Вот видите жёлтые?
Это полонезы стоят, которые нацелены туда, куда надо. Ну это обычное оружие. Я вот говорил своим журналистам сейчас: Путину, когда я не просто его уже просил, я уже требовал: Верни мне ядерное оружие. Не надо стратегически, а мне зачем? С Америкой же я не собираюсь своего.
Тактического вполне достаточно. Искандер бьёт 500 километров и больше. А у него боеголовка ядерная. Так вот, я ему говорю: Если там у тебя проблема с этими тактическими зарядами, ты мне вот сюда, в полонез, впихни ядерный. Я говорю: Мне, говорит, нам легче поставить.
Я говорю: Тогда надо поставлять, потому что мы видим ситуацию. Ну и то, что даже я сказать не могу это под камеру. Да, мы договорились. Мы выполняем это. Поэтому целью мы были всегда.
Нас порвать на куски. С 2020 года хотели. Против ядерной страны, которая обладает ядерным оружием, никто еще не воевал. У нас ракеты и бомбы, мы получили от России, бомбы в три раза мощнее, чем в Хиросиме и на газах. Но там больше 80 тысяч.
Мгновенно погибло 250 от одного удара, а это одна бомба в три раза мощнее. Это, ну я не знаю, под миллион человек погибнет сразу, не дай бог применять это оружие. Но это все-таки ограниченная территория.
Speaker 1: А я прицеплюсь тогда к вашему слову? Вы сказали уже получили от России бомбы и ракеты.
Speaker 0: Ну и все, Потихоньку, когда получим, свяжем тебе глаза, когда приедешь без камеры, завезём хранилище. Как только всё завезём, оно будет рассредоточено. В Беларуси у нас же хранилищ этих, как собак в деревне. Серьёзно, у нас их было много. Мы их уже сегодня 5-6 восстановили, будем больше восстанавливать.
И мы рассредоточим, мы не будем же держать в одном месте.
Speaker 1: -А какая договорённость? Если вам кажется, что агрессия, надо будет созвониться
Speaker 0: с Путиным и -Слушай, вот часто слышу: А вот это российское оружие без России что он не применит? Слушайте, если начнется война, я что, буду смотреть по сторонам? Да нет! Снял трубку, где бы он ни был, он снял. Он позвонил, я снял трубку в любой момент, даже вот сейчас.
Поэтому, ну что тут за проблема согласовать нанесением какого-то там удара? Это не вопрос. Тут спорить даже нечего. Ну а тут мы уже договорились: пусть враги, Оля, трепещут.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discussed the cooperation between Russia and Belarus with President Lukashenko. We also talked about a Belarusian cosmonaut training for a flight to the Russian segment of the International Space Station during our meeting of the Supreme State Council.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Putin and Lukashenko discussed cooperation between Russia and Belarus. A Belarusian cosmonaut is being trained for a flight to the Russian segment of the International Space Station. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko held a meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State of Russia and Belarus.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Russian and Belarusian leaders agreed to approve decisive steps to deepen integration in socio-economic and humanitarian spheres. They marked eightieth anniversaries of the Leningrad blockade’s lifting, Belarus’s liberation, and the victory in the Great Patriotic War, and moved their work to Petersburg. They highlighted 28 union programs unifying law and economy, rising mutual trade (up almost 9.5%) nearing $43 billion, and over $4 billion of Russian investment with about 2,400 Russian companies in Belarus. The Belarusian nuclear power plant (completed 2023) and a cosmonaut training for the ISS were cited. A new Union State strategy through 2035 focuses on technological sovereignty and import substitution, alongside foreign-policy coordination through 2026 and a push for a multipolar world with equal security. The agenda includes 15 items, a planned Oktyabrskaya Railway upgrade, and the Vidybsk Forum in June.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, dear friends, dear members of the Supreme State Council, participants of our meeting, I sincerely thank all Russian colleagues. Personally the President of Russia for the traditional hospitality and warm welcome in Petersburg. Well, you probably know, we worked hard for two days. One might say, two days. We moved smoothly into the third day.
We did a lot of good deeds. You also observed this. The final event of these days is a meeting of the Supreme State Council. Therefore, we have developed a tradition. Vladimir Vladimirovich, I would ask you to start as the owner of this good business so that you speak out.
Welcome. Thank you, dear friends, colleagues. I am pleased to once again welcome Alexander Grigorievich Lukashenko and all our Belarusian colleagues. As always, heads of governments, parliaments, and heads of key departments gathered at the meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State of Russia and Belarus. We altogether have to approve a number of important decisions aimed at further deepening the integration of the two countries, in the socio economic and humanitarian spheres.
As you know, Alexander Grigorovich and I, he just said this, we manage to work closely these days. We took part in the opening ceremony of a memorial in memory of civilians of The USSR, in memory of the victims of the Nazi genocide during the Great Patriotic War, and we attended a gala evening dedicated to the eightieth anniversary of the complete lifting of the siege of Leningrad. I want to thank Alexander Grigorievich and all colleagues who took part in this. I want to thank you for agreeing to change the order of our communication today. Today's work precisely in connection with these significant, I think, for us and for you, events.
First of all, of course, I mean the eightieth anniversary complete lifting of the blockade of Leningrad, and we moved our current joint work to Petersburg. In July, the eightieth anniversary of the liberation of Belarus from the Nazi invaders will be celebrated. And in May 2025, the eightieth anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War. These are the most important memorable dates, significant for our two fraternal peoples, firmly connected by common history and spiritual values, family and kinship ties, and it is on such a strong foundation that the true alliance and strategic partnership between Russia and Belarus is based within the framework of which we have been jointly building the Union State for almost twenty five years. And along this path we managed to achieve really a lot.
Thanks to the successful implementation of 28 secondtoral union programs, Russian and Belarusian legislation has been unified. The legal and organizational foundations of the common economic space have been formed, conditions have been created for the implementation of a unified macroeconomic and monetary policy, for joint work to minimize the damage from illegal Western restrictions. Mutual trade is growing steadily from year to year. According to the results of eleven months of last year, Russian Belarusian trade turnover increased by almost 9.5%, and it came close to a record $43,000,000,000 Russia has invested over $4,000,000,000 in the Belarusian economy. There are about 2,400 Russian companies operating in the Republic.
With the direct participation of Russia, the construction of a Belarusian nuclear power plant was completed in 2023. Of course, this is a very serious movement forward. I mean that not only the station has been built, but, as we always say, an industry is being created. And in this sense, Belarus, of course, has become a nuclear power. This is a serious step forward in the development of the economy and scientific sphere, in technological development.
I will also mention that a Belarusian cosmonaut is being trained for a flight to the Russian segment of the International Space Station. And this event is planned for the spring of this year. It is characteristic that the draft of the main directions for implementing the provisions of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Union State for 2024 to 2026, submitted to the Supreme State Council, is aimed at further intensifying the entire multifaceted interaction of our countries, including in industry, agriculture, energy, transport and logistics, and information sphere. In addition, a new strategy for the scientific and technological development of the Union State for the period until 2035 has been prepared for approval, containing specific steps to strengthen overall technological sovereignty, including the launch of large joint projects on import substitution and the creation of competitive products with high added value, it is important that Russia and Belarus, under conditions of unprecedented external pressure, closely interact on the world stage, and we invariably provide each other with truly allied mutual support, the approaches of our countries to current global and regional problems coincide, or they are in many ways close. The program of coordinated actions of the Union State in the field of foreign policy for the period until 2026, prepared for this meeting, will certainly serve to continue and develop even closer Russian Belarusian coordination in international affairs.
In the interests of forming a truly multipolar, democratic and fair world order, We will work together to ensure equal and indivisible security, I will emphasize that many other key issues of the activities of the Union State of Russia and Belarus have been submitted for our consideration and approval. That is, the current meeting is truly of fundamental importance, and its agenda is very meaningful and rich. This clearly demonstrates the firm intention of the two countries to do everything necessary to deepen mutually beneficial and equal integration. And in conclusion, I would like to once again greet the Russian and Belarusian colleagues gathered in this room and wish us all successful work. And I am pleased to hand over the reins of government to Alexander Grigorievich Lukashenko, Chairman of the Supreme State Council of the Union State.
Thank you, Vladimir Vladimirovich. We really worked very seriously these two days. This is not a joke. We can say directly, from the South Pole to the North Pole. We discussed the problems of Antarctica.
More comfortable working conditions are being created there for Russians. A wintering complex has been created, but the most important thing is that no one shares anything there. Belarusians work together with Russians. Our station is located nearby, 20 kilometers away, and all kinds of assistance, both scientific and everyday, are provided to the Belarusian specialists who are stationed there. Then Vladimir Vladimirovich and I walked from south to north.
Of course, we analyzed the events that are happening in the world. Take our aspiration. Russia and Belarus. The People's Republic Of China. Russia is at the forefront of this because it bears the most burden, and it suffers more than anyone.
And the reasons for all this are the Houthis, and the Middle East, and the South China Sea with Taiwan. Problems, this is all because a multipolar world is coming. As the Russian Foreign Minister said, the monopolist does not want this. They are trying to maintain a unipolar world using different methods. They have even reached the point of armed conflicts.
We discussed economic problems and work on the Asian continent, especially in Africa, which invites us. Vladimir Vladimirovich knows that we coordinated my trips to Africa, where I talked with the Presidents. They are really waiting for us there. First of all, the Russian Federation with enormous opportunities, understanding that times are difficult. But, nevertheless, Africa is waiting there for Russia, knowing how it was in Soviet times.
Northern Sea route. We would really like the program to be implemented faster. It would be easier for us to work. Well, as you can see, this is a whole range of issues, from south to north. Our meeting, as the President said here, is taking place on the eve of important domestic political events.
For the first time in history, a single voting day will take place in Belarus on February 25 this year. Following the example of Russia, we have also established a constitutionally single voting day. And on this day, deputies of parliament and local councils will be elected, in our case these are regional district and village councils, which have been preserved as they were in Soviet times. And on March 17, presidential elections will be held in Russia. This is a difficult period, but, as you can see, it is passing calmly, and I am confident that we will calmly approach these dates, and we will carry out these events just as calmly.
By the end of 2023, we will update the historical maximum of trade in goods and services. Vladimir Vladimirovich gave a figure for ten months. This is more than $40,000,000,000. But if you take the year as a whole, goods and services, it will be approximately $54,000,000,000, indeed. This is a historical maximum.
Achieving high results is largely the result of the implementation of 28 union programs. Within the framework of which fundamental decisions were made, well, of course, we have to develop general criteria for assessing the effectiveness of their implementation. And the key ones at today's meeting are the reports of our governments on the implementation of the main directions of implementation of the provisions Establishment of the Union State for 2021 to 2023. And today we will also approve a new program document. If the members of the Supreme State Council agree for the next three year cycle, for 2024, 2025, 2026.
This cycle involves continuing work to strengthen the common economic space and remove remaining trade barriers. It is important to strengthen the international positioning of our union, as we are trying to do with the Eurasian Economic Union. The main task in the industrial sphere is to intensify cooperation in the field of import substitution. A lot has been done here. We have understood a lot, things that we did not understand two years ago.
They failed to bring us to our knees. On the contrary, we mobilized, and I say that we did a lot. Basic intergovernmental agreements were signed on the recognition of technological operations, on the development of microelectronic technologies, on the design of the production of electronic components, electronic engineering, and on a unified industrial policy. Yesterday, Vladimir Vladimirovichenai, just in the middle of the day, very carefully analyzed these issues using the example of microelectronics. I am convinced that the decree prepared for signing will in fact ensure mutual recognition of technological operations.
I believe that our governments should take measures as soon as possible to ensure its unconditional implementation without any derogations or exceptions. It is also necessary at all costs to eliminate everything. That hinders the mutual supply of goods, level the operating conditions for enterprises, eliminate barriers in the field of government procurement, and remove restrictions on the transit of goods. These topics are not new. But we still have a lot of rough edges in this regard.
I would especially note that we have not yet fully decided on the most important issues. This concerns the creation of common markets for gas, oil and petroleum products. Just at a time when we can calmly make these decisions, they will be beneficial for both Russia and Belarus. Vladimir Vladimirovich and I regularly discuss these fundamentally important topics, and agreements have been reached. I think that our governments need to more actively implement these agreements, including on the logistics of transporting Belarusian export goods through Russian ports.
There is a proposal to increase the capacity of the Oktyabrskaya Railway in the direction of the ports of Saint Petersburg, it is clear that tens of millions of tons of Belarusian cargo are redirected from the Baltic ports of the Baltic States to Saint Petersburg, Murmansk and the Black Sea ports. But tension exists. Therefore, Vladimir Vladimirovich and I about three months ago, when we discussed this problem, we decided that the Oktyabrskaya Railway in the direction of Petersburg should work more intensively. And at the first stage, a little money and a little work will be required in order to restore the routes. There were these crossings.
But when Ukraine moved away from cargo transit, what happened in the Petersburg direction was what happened. Therefore, we will still need, both for Russia and for Belarus, to restore the flow of cargo in this direction. Today there are important topics on the agenda, such as the creation of a union media holding, the settlement of the issue of common ownership, the approval of the strategy for the scientific and technological development of the Union State until 02/1935, and a number of other topics. The President spoke about this. I am sure that everyone understands how important it is to pursue a coordinated information policy.
There is a powerful information confrontation going on. Many call this a war, but, thank God, we have not yet approached war even in the media, but the confrontation is serious. I think that if we create a normal media holding, taking into account trial and error earlier, especially Russian specialists went through this, then it will be a good holding. People need to know what is happening in Belarus and Russia. What exists now does not completely satisfy us, and it is right.
This year we are celebrating a number of significant dates, most notably the eightieth anniversary of the liberation of Belarus and the twenty fifth anniversary of the signing of the treaty establishing our main project, when we are trying to build our union state. These are powerful ideological reasons. We have no right not to use them to promote our values and defend the truth about our common history. The President spoke about this in detail, for example, at recent events, we expect new fresh ideas, and most importantly, breakthrough economic projects, specific proposals for the development of cooperation from the eleventh Forum of Regions of and Russia, which will be held in Vidybsk in June. I think, Valentino Ivanovna, Natalia Ivanovna, that you are our main figures in this direction, as always, these will be successful practical events.
Dear friends, I say again, a lot can be said about the results of our meetings, our work, but I think that the media have already said a lot about this. We need to move on to the agenda of our work. Today there are 15 items on the agenda of our meeting. You, the members of the Supreme State Council, have an agenda in your hands. It is not a secret for our present specialists either.
It was formed taking into account the relevance of the issues for our bilateral and integration interaction.
reSee.it AI Summary
I reviewed the timeline of the Bucha incident as presented by Western media, arguing it was a staged provocation to disrupt peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in spring 2022. I highlighted Russia's efforts to gather information from the UN and the Human Rights Office, emphasizing our claims of a "parallel reality" created by Western outlets. I also pointed out that the UN's lack of cooperation contradicts its foundational principles of justice and transparency.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
"Staged" - Russia Accuses UN of Covering Up Bucha Incident for Kiev and the West Zakharova reviews the timeline of how the story about Bucha was presented in Western media, calls it a staged provocation aimed at sabotaging the peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in the spring of 2022, and reveals Russia’s attempts to obtain information from the UN Secretariat and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. She emphasizes that the Russian side has repeatedly exposed what it calls a “parallel reality” created by Western outlets, appealed to the United Nations for cooperation, and even formally challenged the refusal to provide data that could shed light on what happened. Zakharova argues that the UN Secretariat’s actions (or inaction) contradict the principles of justice and transparency that the UN is meant to uphold.
Video Transcript AI Summary
It has already been more than three years since staging of the alleged mass killing in Bucha, which the speaker says Kyiv regime and its Western curators "hastily cobbled together this implausible story." They claim it was "criminal disinformation" about Moscow, and that Russian investigative authorities opened a criminal case to clarify what happened. They say they appealed to the UN secretariat and High Commissioner Volker Türk; in September 2024, via the Russian mission in New York, a request was delivered for information, but the UN allegedly tried to let the appeal fade away. They quote UN officials saying they understood that what Kyiv and West insisted happened did not occur, yet offered no exposure. They accuse the UN of evading cooperation and demand publication of the appeal as UN documents, calling for a thorough Bucha investigation and justice, and alleging Kyiv left negotiations after Boris Johnson promised them influence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It has already been more than three years since the staging of the alleged mass killing of local residents by Russian servicemen, as it was presented in the western media in the city of Bucha in the Kyiv region. At that time, the Kyiv regime, and above all its Western curators, hastily cobbled together this implausible story. We have repeatedly exposed the authors of this production thoroughly and with arguments refuting the accusations leveled at Moscow. I remember that day minute by minute. That is how we tried to understand what was happening.
It was so absurd. It was so wild. It was truly some kind of parallel reality. One happening in reality in which we really found ourselves. Where none of what was claimed had taken place at all, and another which was being broadcast at those very moments in the Western media.
It was practically impossible to refute. How was it impossible to refute? Well, imagine if something similar had been said about any one of you. You open a newspaper, and there is an absolute lie written there. But millions of people have already been supplied with it.
You stand there and do not even understand how to justify yourself. And how do you do that if you did not commit this? Here we should not be talking about justification, but about completely different things, about the fact that you are becoming the victim of criminal disinformation. At the same time, Russian investigative authorities opened a criminal case to clarify the circumstances of what had happened. What actually happened there?
Realizing that the regime of Zelenskyy would not expose its own bloody provocation, we repeatedly appealed to the United Nations secretariat and high commissioner for human rights Volker Turk. He represents Austria. I mean, he is a citizen of this country, and we requested to assist in obtaining the data necessary for the investigation. In September 2024, through the permanent mission of Russia in New York, a request prepared by the investigative committee in cooperation with the general prosecutor's office was delivered to the UN officials, requesting assistance in providing the information available on this matter. The secretariat of the United Nations, for a long time, tried to let our appeal fade away.
I wanna say more informally in the corridors, current employees of the United Nations secretary had approached and spoke, including during meetings but off the record, saying that they understand everything and know that what the Kyiv regime and the West insist happened, there did not actually occur. They know this. That is why, as they told us at the time in the UN Secretariat, they stopped putting public emphasis on this. This is true. If at the beginning they participated in it, then later having seen and realized the entire horror and hell of this staging and production, they tried in some way to distance themselves, but at the same time did nothing to expose this fake.
Despite our repeated reminders, appeals and requests to speed up the response, the petition remained without any meaningful reaction. That is inform if there were any formal replies at all. There was no specificity and nothing substantive was provided. Only in July, the request was sent in July 2024. That is a year later.
Did the permanent mission in New York receive a response from the office of legal affairs of the UN secretary? However, it is not worth the paper it is written on. One cannot bring oneself to call this a document. It is nothing but a formal reply. The UN officials' reasoning is simple and unpretentious.
Allegedly, the office of the UN high commissioner for human rights analyzed our request and came to the conclusion that the relevant information cannot be disclosed. I am offering you an option. Do you think this information cannot be disclosed? And here they said, because this would violate obligations to maintain confidentiality with third parties in or would jeopardize within this paradigm, one might assume even personal data, personal safety. I don't know.
Some kind of private information. But know the security of the activities of The United Nations. You understand? Just imagine the United Nations has And an answer to the banal question, what did you find out in the course of your actions and investigations, could supposedly jeopardize the security of the activities of the United Nations, which is supposed and intended to stand guard over peace and security throughout the world. On the other hand, these arguments are not new.
Previously, Volker Turk also resorted to similar justifications in response to the notes of the Russian permanent mission in Geneva. In his letters, he referred to the conclusions of the notorious independent international commission of inquiry on Ukraine and the UN human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine, allegedly confirming that Russian servicemen committed crimes in Bucha. What an astonishing game. When it is necessary to accuse our country, everything is found. Arguments, references to unnamed sources, some receive reports, everything is there.
True, they do not give them, do not show them, but refer to them indirectly. As soon as you request some information, they say, well, no. We will not give this. Why? Is it unsafe?
We have every reason to believe that the UN secretariat is deliberately evading constructive interaction with the Russian side in violation of the established practice of cooperation with states in the interest of the administration of justice. And, of course, such an approach cannot be acceptable to us. As an initial reaction, the Russian permanent mission in New York sent a letter to the UN secretary general in which it pointed out the unjustified delay in responding to the Russian request and challenged the validity of the references to confidentiality obligations towards third parties in the case of serious accusations against a member state, and also reminded of the obligation of the United Nations to cooperate with states for the purposes of the administration of justice. We demanded that our appeal be published as official documents of the UN General Assembly and Security Council. We want to warn the secretariat that we will not leave this matter as it is.
We will continue to insistently demand that the UN officials abandon their unconstructive line, cease covering up the Ukrainian staging aimed at discrediting our country. The main point is that it was aimed at disrupting the negotiation process that was underway at the time. That was its primary function. Not only and not so much to once again demonize Russia for that they always have the opportunities, resources, will and means. But this particular provocation was necessary in order to explain to the international community why the Kyiv regime was leaving the negotiating table in the 2022.
And it later turned out that the Kyiv regime was abandoning the negotiating platform not because of the invented atrocities by the Russian Federation, but because Boris Johnson showed up to them. He promised them something, that he would soon help them become the main players on planet Earth and in three adjacent universes. And after that, they stopped the negotiation process with the Russian Federation. They needed a picture for Western screens, a little story, and they organized it. They took as a basis similar events in the form of a provocation by the Third Reich and the German fascist troops during the second world war about which we have spoken in detail.
We will definitely add the link to today's briefing. Therefore, it is necessary, and we will insist on this, to conduct a thorough investigation of the events in Buca, to identify and bring the perpetrators to justice. This is not just disinformation, but a crime, a real crime.
reSee.it AI Summary
I call the Bucha incident a hoax, claiming it was staged. Lavrov expresses disgrace towards the UN Secretary General, reiterating my long-standing question about the identities of the corpses displayed on Bucha's central street.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
🤥BUCHA HOAX !!! "Staged" Lavrov: "I think this is a disgrace for the UN Secretary General!". I've been asking him one question for the third year in a row. I ask you to use your authority, Mr. Secretary-General, to get a list of those people whose corpses were shown in the city of Bucha on central street?
Video Transcript AI Summary
But one thing is clear: the Secretariat does not want to expose in any way those who arrange such provocations. And, by the way, as for Mr. Gutierrez, I've been asking him one question for the third year in a row, okay. You probably can't get access to the investigation. But can I ask you to use your authority, Mr? Secretary General, to get a list of those people whose corpses were shown in this city of Bucha on the Central Street. Moreover, a group of BBC correspondents, who unexpectedly found themselves there showed these corpses. I addressed Mr. Gutierrez both personally and publicly, by the way, at a security meeting, but he shyly averts his eyes. I think this is a disgrace for the Secretary General and for the entire Secretariat.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But one thing is clear: the Secretariat does not want to expose in any way those who arrange such provocations, bloody provocations. And, by the way, as for Mr. Gutierrez, I've been asking him one question for the third year in a row, okay. You probably can't get access to the investigation. But can I ask you to use your authority, Mr?
Secretary General, to get a list of those people whose corpses were shown in this city of Bucha on the Central Street. Moreover, a group of BBC correspondents, who unexpectedly found themselves there showed these corpses. I addressed Mr. Gutierrez both personally and publicly, by the way, at a security meeting, but he shyly averts his eyes. I think this is a disgrace for the Secretary General and for the entire Secretariat.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
How Soros Brainwashed Ukrainians There where I have passed no grass will ever grow again ... 👿 The evil satanic creature, Soros, proudly says that everyone involved in power in Ukraine was, in one way or another, trained by his foundation. https://t.co/sMbfqGaa3I
Video Transcript AI Summary
They discuss civil society in the former Soviet Union. They note the foundation in Ukraine was set up in 1990, two years before Ukraine's independence, as an offshoot of the foundation in Russia. The Cultural Initiative Foundation in 1987 funded scholarships and supported civil society; the maturity of civil society twenty-five years later is largely the foundation's work. The interviewer observes that Open Society has touched Ukraine's leadership through scholarships, with many leaders' families benefiting. The conversation shifts to Putin's appeal in Europe; not all Europeans share our view, with Hungary's leader describing Putin as a model, Greeks visiting Moscow, and Le Pen's links to Putin; the question is how to explain this influence. The interviewee offers a political-historical perspective, noting involvement in the collapse of the Soviet system and calling himself a political philanthropist.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is that was that George civil society in action? You've been working on helping to build civil society, trying to build it, often frustrated, in the former Soviet Union, in the Soviet Union. I know you started I first met you in Ukraine in 1990 when you began those efforts. There were many years, I think, when it seemed it was all useless. Does it say something to you, teach you something about open society, civil society building?
Speaker 1: Well, yes. Because, basically, in many ways, I set up the foundation in Ukraine in 1990, which is two years before the independence of Ukraine. That was part it it was an offshoot of the foundation in Russia. You know, there's a a set up Cultural Initiative Foundation in in in in Soviet Union in 1987. And then we've built this branch in in Ukraine in 1990.
And and the foundation one of the found the things that the foundation foundation did, did, gave gave a a lot lot of of scholarships scholarships and and and and and supported civil society. And the maturity of civil society twenty five years later is, to a large extent, the work of the foundation.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I will just offer my own personal testimony here. It's actually amazing in Ukraine. The new Ukrainian government, the new Ukrainian leadership, everyone who I know in that group has been touched somehow by open society and by Georgia like, literally, either people personally got a scholarship or someone, you know, their wife got a scholarship. It it's a really remarkable thing.
Speaker 1: Well, this is a a a for me, quite an experience to see this and I I didn't realize actually how much big an effect it has had over a twenty five year period because those were students. The twenty five years later, they were leaders.
Speaker 0: So, George, the way you describe Ukraine, and you know that's where my own sympathies lie also, is incredibly appealing. It maybe is another one of these fantastical objects, but not all Europeans agree with us. The leader of your own homeland, Hungary, has described Putin as a model as a role model. We have political leaders across Europe. We have the Greeks right now making trips to Moscow.
We have in France, Marielle Le Pen having close contacts with Putin. What what how do you explain this influence, this appeal that Putin has in Europe?
Speaker 1: Well, I think I can take a political a historical perspective because I was very much involved in the collapse of the Soviet system. That was my debut as a what I call myself a political philanthropist.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the Ukraine war was provoked by the U.S. aiming to weaken Russia, with Germany complicit throughout. NATO and Western nations have acted deceitfully, prioritizing domination over diplomacy. The conflict actually began in 2014 with a coup supported by the U.S., not in 2022 as commonly thought. Current governments in Germany, France, and Britain continue to escalate tensions instead of seeking peace. The consequences of decades of U.S. foreign policy and NATO expansion have led us to this destructive situation, overshadowing missed opportunities for resolution.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Jeffrey Sachs "FIRED WARMONGERS" Starmer, Merz, Macron This war was provoked by the United States' desire to weaken Russia and to surround Russia, and Germany has played along at every step. NATO cheated. Germany cheated. The United States cheated because they wanted domination over Russia. The Ukraine war began 11 years ago with a violent coup – supported by the USA” Instead of deescalating in Europe's interest, the current warmongering governments of Germany, France, and Great Britain are relentlessly continuing this destructive course. Today, the world is reaping the fruits of decades of US foreign policy, which, with NATO expansion, deliberately fueled this conflict despite numerous warnings and prevented a rapid peace without territorial losses in Ukraine in 2022. In his speech, Sachs shows why the Ukraine war began not in 2022, but in 2014. It is clear that this war, desired by the US administration, is not simply the result of Russian aggression, but also a result of broken Western commitments, misjudgments, and missed opportunities.
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Peace in Ukraine is possible now."
"The war started eleven years ago when The United States backed a violent coup to overthrow the Ukrainian government of president Viktor Yanukovych."
"Why did The United States want NATO enlargement? Because The United States wanted to dominate Russia."
"It was based on autonomy for Eastern Ukraine, the ethnically Russian part of Ukraine."
"The United States and Germany ignored the treaty."
"Do not accept neutrality. Fight on."
"The Ukraine war can end now based on neutrality of Ukraine. Just say it. Neutrality."
"Diplomacy where Europe and Russia sit down and undertake collective security, recognizing that Russia does not want NATO or NATO troops on its border, and Russia recognizing that Europe does not want Russian troops in Ukraine."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello. I'm Jeffrey Sachs. I want to thank you for calling for peace and speaking out against the warmongers of Europe. Your chancellor, Mertz, prime minister Starmer of The United Kingdom, president Macron of France, the three warmongers that put Europe and indeed the world in great danger. Peace in Ukraine is possible now.
And to understand how to make peace, we need to understand where this war came from. The war started eleven years ago when The United States backed a violent coup to overthrow the Ukrainian government of president Viktor Yanukovych. Why did The United States engage in a violent coup? Because Viktor Yanukovych wanted neutrality for Ukraine, but The United States wanted NATO enlargement, and not only to Ukraine, but all the way to the caucuses, Georgia. Why?
Why did The United States want NATO enlargement? Because The United States wanted to dominate Russia. The United States wants global hegemony. It wants its militaries everywhere, and so it wanted to push NATO enlargement all the way to Ukraine and Georgia over the vociferous red lines of Russia. Why?
Well, in February 1990, both Germany and The United States promised to Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch eastward, and then NATO cheated. Germany cheated. The United States cheated because they wanted domination over Russia. After the coup, the war began, and a peace treaty was negotiated in 2015, the Minsk two agreement. Germany and France were to be the guarantors of this peace agreement.
It was based on autonomy for Eastern Ukraine, the ethnically Russian part of Ukraine. What did the United States and Germany do? They ignored the treaty. They told Ukraine, you don't have to implement autonomy. We back you up.
Unfortunately, former chancellor Merkel even confirmed this, that they did not take the Minsk two agreement seriously. In March 2022, when the war escalated with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Negotiations almost immediately ended the war. But what did the United States do? It told Ukraine, do not accept neutrality. Fight on.
And Germany supported that. France supported that. The UK supported that. All warm unders. And so the war has continued, and well over a million Ukrainians have been killed or seriously wounded since that time.
The Ukraine war can end now based on neutrality of Ukraine. Just say it. Neutrality. Not NATO, but neutrality. Instead, your chancellor and the other warmongers of Europe are saying, fight on, even prepare for European war.
This is madness. What we need is diplomacy. Diplomacy where Europe and Russia sit down and undertake collective security, recognizing that Russia does not want NATO or NATO troops on its border, and Russia recognizing that Europe does not want Russian troops in Ukraine. Ukraine should be neutral. And, yes, there will be some territorial changes, but don't let chancellor Mertz or anyone else say, borders are inviolable.
Germany recognized Kosovo, which NATO created by bombing Serbia for seventy eight straight days in 1999. Don't talk about inviolability of borders. It's a little bit late. Germany should have done its job and enforced the Minsk two agreement. In short, ladies and gentlemen, peace can come now.
Historical knowledge is the key. This war was provoked by The United States' desire for hegemony. This war was provoked by The United States' desire to weaken Russia and to surround Russia, and Germany has played along at every step. And now you have a warmonger chancellor who together with the warmongers in France and UK seem to be calling for further escalation and endless war. You and I call for peace through diplomacy.
It can be achieved now. Thanks to you. We're taking a major advance in achieving peace through mutual understanding and collective security. Thank you so much for what you're doing. Thank you so much for your service to the whole world in the cause of peace.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Not dissolving NATO in 1990 was a big mistake, and it’s time to fix that mistake. If you still believe that Russia started this conflict in 2022, then you are either corrupt, ignorant, or brainwashed. https://t.co/5tzV6Bvl8n Can Anyone Point me a Single Defensive War that Was Waged by NATO?
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Does Tucker think Israel is a terrorist state? https://t.co/4Es9awZ9AY
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 centers the discussion on “why is Israel killing Christians,” arguing that Americans and Christians fund Israel and the IDF, and that Christians’ sites are blocked or attacked. He notes Hamas may have Christian members and points out a paradox about secular groups like Fatah having Christian support, asking for a coherent explanation for why Christians are being killed in a conflict not clearly about Christianity. He claims “Hamas was funded by Israel to some extent” and distinguishes religious versus political motivations, suggesting a purely religious motive would foreclose Christian accomplices. He defines terrorism as “the act of murdering the innocent” and says “If you murder the innocent, you are engaged in terrorism.” He argues Israel is not the litmus test; the focus should be on one’s own country, and that “the worst thing you can do is punish the innocent.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: No. I I said you can't claim first of all, the core of it is why is Israel killing Christians
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Who fund it? Americans fund Israel, fund the IDF. They wouldn't none of this would be possible without The United States and Christians in The United States. So they don't get to go kill Christians. They don't get to block access to Christian holy sites.
They don't get to they don't get to allow people to spit on Christian clergy and they definitely don't get permission from the country that funds them to blow up churches or Christian hospitals and yet they have a lot. So what the hell is that? And that's my point. And in response and I've asked that not as a hater of Israel, but as a Christian. So I've asked that pretty persistently for the last few years.
I've really been attacked for it, but so what? And the response is, well, they're not actually, you know, they're they're in Hamas. And so my question is, well, you're you're telling me simultaneously that Hamas is a religious group. They're Islamic extremists, but they also have Christian members? Like, how does that work?
It doesn't make any sense at all. That was my point. I'm not endorsing Hamas. I didn't say they're not a terror group. That's a freaking lie.
I said, if you're telling me they're a jihadi group, they're political extremist groups, by the way, Fatah. There were tons of Arab political terror groups that were secular that did have Christians in them, by the way, a lot of Christians who were displaced in 1948 and they were radical or whatever. But there's do you see what I'm saying? There's like a a childish internal contradiction there that and now they don't wanna deal with it, so it's like, shut up Hamas support.
Speaker 1: I think I think what got people going
Speaker 0: You stop killing christ you stop killing Christians.
Speaker 1: I understood I understood understood the bigger point.
Speaker 0: Is that? It is What's the justification for that?
Speaker 1: I understood the bigger point you were making. Like I said, I'm
Speaker 0: a Christian. I don't have to put up
Speaker 1: Oh, I understand.
Speaker 0: I understand. More. I don't have to sit back and be like
Speaker 1: I understand.
Speaker 0: All these Christian ministers in The United States are like, oh, shut up.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: We can't complain about a government that we fund killing Christians. I
Speaker 1: don't
Speaker 0: know who's writing the rules here, but I'm not obeying them. I'm not attacking Israel. I'm not an anti Semite. You don't get to kill Christians who have nothing to do with this. It's the world's only religion that is not only nonviolent but considers retaliation a sin.
Turn the other cheek. That's the religion. So why are you killing these people? I I understand. Straight answer.
And telling me names is not gonna deter me.
Speaker 1: I understand the bigger point you made. I but like I said, you definitely say
Speaker 0: It's the only point I made.
Speaker 1: You definitely said in passing that they seem more like a political organization. So do you wanna clarify what you meant by that bit?
Speaker 0: I'm I'm saying funded by Israel political association, by the way.
Speaker 1: You
Speaker 0: sure? Hamas was funded by Israel to some extent. It's not a controversial statement. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's an established fact by the current prime minister, took money, gave it to Hamas.
I I meant what I said, which is they are either I'm not questioning whether they've committed violence. They have. I'm opposed to that. I'm opposed to all violence, period. And I'm opposed to Hamas violence.
I'm opposed to killing people. The question is, if you are telling me that they are inspired to kill because of their religious ideology, that is a different thing from people who are inspired to kill by their political ideology. Because if it's political, you can imagine an alliance with Christians. If it is a religious motivation, it is impossible to imagine, as I said in that clip, Christian accomplices. There weren't a lot of Christians supporting Al Qaeda because Al Qaeda was explicitly anti Christian, so was ISIS.
Fatah, which was again a radical or violence prone Palestinian political organization had Christian support. So which is it? That's my point. I was calling into question their lack of a coherent explanation for why Christians are being killed in a conflict that, from my perspective, doesn't seem to have anything to do with that. Do do you desecrating churches.
Speaker 1: Do you view Hamas as a terrorist organization as they've been prescribed in many countries, including The US?
Speaker 0: I view Hamas killing people, especially civilians, as horrifying, immoral, and wrong. And if you think you're gonna get me into some semantic game about who's a terrorist and who's not a terrorist, Killing people who committed no crime is wrong. Period. That's the basis of Christian belief. It's the basis of Western civilization.
Dropping bombs on people who did nothing wrong is a crime. Period. That is why we say we are better than the terrorists because we don't kill people who did nothing wrong. And by definition, children haven't done anything wrong. So you are not allowed to kill them.
And now there's an entire network of not a television network, but a loosely aligned network arguing that it's somehow wrong to say it's immoral to kill children. And I think it's immoral to kill children no matter who kills the children, whether it's the government of the United States, the government of Sri Lanka, the government of Belgium, the government of Israel, Hamas. It doesn't matter. It is immoral to kill people who haven't done anything wrong. That's why Hiroshima is a problem.
That's why I've complained about Hiroshima. That's why the Nazis were bad. That's why everybody who murders innocents is wrong. And when did that become controversial? Like, said, I articulated that and was immediately attacked by all these, you know, people on the so called right.
I was like, then what is the whole point? What is the point of living here or having this country if we endorse murdering people who committed no crime? How are we better than the people we supposedly hate? You can't get an answer. Oh, you're a radical jihadi.
No. Actually, I'm I'm a protestant Christian who hates radical jihadis. Like, I don't even know what you're talking about. Anyway, that that's it. That's the distinction.
And by the way, the designation of terrorism grows from that understanding, which was a common understanding before nine eleven. If you kill people intentionally, you've committed no crime, you are the criminal. And who does that? Terrorists. That's why we call them terrorists.
So, I'm happy to call anyone who does that a terrorist. That's my definition. That was our working definition before nine eleven, and then it just became the people our political class doesn't like. And I've been called it I was called a terrorist yesterday. You're a terrorist.
Okay. Because I espouse nonviolence, which is the basis? It's the basis of Western civilization that you punish only the guilty?
Speaker 1: Look. I'm trying to work out I'm trying to work out whether I'm trying to work out. Do do you actually think then that Hamas are terrorists or not?
Speaker 0: I think any organization that kills the innocent, including Hamas, is a terror organization.
Speaker 1: Got it. Okay.
Speaker 0: What I object to, and I just wanna be as clear as I possibly can, what I object to is the proceeding with the conversation without the defining of terms. The purpose of language is to convey specific ideas, and so in order to have a conversation, you have to define what you're talking about. If I were to throw a couple Korean terms in and refuse to tell you what they mean, we couldn't have a conversation because you don't speak Korean. And so I want you to define terrorism, and I'm gonna do it very precisely. Terrorism is the act of murdering the innocent.
If you murder the innocent, you are engaged in terrorism. And that would include, in specific cases I can think of, Hamas, which has murdered the innocent, people at a music festival. I mean, what? That is terrorism. Anybody who murders people who committed no crime is committing terrorism.
Speaker 1: Does that include
Speaker 0: And if someone else can
Speaker 1: think Does that include okay. So does that include Israel?
Speaker 0: Includes anybody.
Speaker 1: Does that include Israel?
Speaker 0: It includes anybody.
Speaker 1: No. But
Speaker 0: Anybody but by the way, let me just say, I it's so funny. It's does that include Israel? It includes people I know personally in The United States. I know a lot of people who have ok'd the order. I know in some cases, people who participated in carrying out the order to murder people who committed no crime.
Does that mean they're terrorists? I don't know. I'll let God figure out what that means. It means they're committing acts of terror. That is terrorism because the point of it is not to punish the guilty.
The point of it is to inspire fear. The point of it is to depopulate a place, move a population. Whatever the point of it is, the effect of it is to punish people who've committed no crime. And in our system, the western system, is very distinct from the Eastern system, very distinct, and it's distinct on this one precise point, we believe and have always believed since this country was founded, since your country became, you know, not a pure monarchy, but even when it was a pure monarchy. The belief in the West because of Christianity was the worst thing you can do is punish the innocent.
That's the worst thing you can do. That's worse than not punishing the guilty, and we often said that to each other. We no longer say that because there is a pretty concerted effort to blur the meaning of these terms. But I'm not going to be deterred from defining words precisely. Terror is murdering people, killing people, punishing people who committed no crime.
Period.
Speaker 1: So when when the Israeli government says it has repeatedly that even though over 20,000 completely innocent children are believed to have died in in their response to what Hamas did on October 7 At the hands of the IDF, there are many on the pro Palestinian side who say that Israel is behaving like terrorists too in the way that they have gone about conducting this war. Would would you go as far as to say that?
Speaker 0: One of the the things that I really object to now is this relentless focus on Israel, which, by way, is a foreign country that I have nothing to do with other than having been a visitor there and really enjoyed it. And it's now at the center of the conversation in my country when my country is degrading at high speed. We have a lot of concerns here. I just resent the kind of solipsism that pulls everything back to the concerns of a foreign country, and that's the litmus test for the well, Israel? Is Israel bad?
How dare you say that? Are you gonna go out on a limb and criticize Israel? What about my country? Every country commits terror because leaders, drunk on hubris, imagine that they can do things that no human being is permitted to do. And first on that list is killing people who didn't do anything wrong.
That is the ultimate sin, and it happens in every country, in every period. Of course, Israel meets that def I mean, obviously, but so does my government. And and not always, and I think we try harder. Certainly, try harder than Israel is trying, but we have definitely done that, and it's not controversial to say that. It's not controversial to say that things the US government have has done have intentionally murdered people who didn't do anything wrong.
People are like, yeah, that's right. But you say that about Benjamin Netanyahu who has nothing to do with me at all. I don't live there. I don't wanna live there. I've got nothing to do with that.
Then you're somehow a criminal. That whole frame to me is insane, and I'm not participating with it. Israel is not the litmus test. How you feel about your own country, what you do to improve or degrade your own country, that's the litmus test for me. Not how you feel about some foreign country, period.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe Jeffrey Sachs deserves a Nobel Prize. Wars stem from political decisions, and the gamble on Ukraine's safety was a grave error linked to NATO's expansion. Promises made to Gorbachev about NATO not moving east were broken, and I witnessed it firsthand.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
🏆 Jeffrey Sachs Should Be A Nobel Prize Winner Wars are the result of politics. They gambled Ukraine's safety and they lost. And it was a terrible mistake. It's been a war over NATO enlargement. United States should have ended NATO They told President Gorbachev on February 7th, 1990, James Baker III, NATO will not move one inch eastward. Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the foreign minister of Germany. NATO will not move eastward at all. I was there in those days. They promised. They lied.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The war in Ukraine was a terrible debacle caused by The United States expanding NATO despite Russia's objections. Ukraine and Russia were about to sign a peace agreement based on neutrality, but "The United States said, no." We want "military bases. We want NATO there. Don't sign the agreement." The speaker argues the conflict could end if Trump publicly declared that NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine: "NATO will not move one inch eastward, not one inch." They note "They promised." The piece cites Clinton in 1994 beginning NATO enlargement and calls this "the most basic point" that we do not need conflict. It says we end Ukraine's war with Ukrainian neutrality and halting NATO enlargement; Russia won't accept it, "just like The United States didn't accept bases in Cuba of the Russian military." It closes with AI as a better mediator: "it'll give you both sides of the argument."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The the war in Ukraine was a a terrible debacle that The United States sadly walked into over a thirty year period by expanding NATO despite Russia's continuing objections. Don't come closer to our border. Don't come closer to our border. I know it. I was president Gorbachev's on his economic advisory team thirty six years ago.
I was president Yeltsin's economic adviser. I was Ukraine's economic adviser to president Kuchma. So I know both sides. The basic point was Russia wanted some space so that The United States wasn't pushing its missile systems, its Aegis missiles, its military bases right up against Russia's borders. But The United States said, we go where we want, where when we want, where we want, how we want, and the war finally ensued.
The war could have ended in 2022. Ukraine and Russia were about to sign a peace agreement based on neutrality for Ukraine. But The United States said, no. No. No.
We want military bases. We want NATO there. Don't sign the agreement. So Ukraine continued to fight. So will Trump end this?
He could end this. He just has to say very clearly, publicly, explicitly, NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine. That is over. We will not be next to Russia pushing ourselves into Russia's front yard, basically. And if The US does this, there will be peace in Ukraine because the war will end.
It's been a war over NATO enlargement. The war will end on that basis. Unfortunately, president Biden insisted to the last day NATO will expand to Ukraine. President Trump knows it's not right, but he hasn't quite said it yet. So we're close to the war ending, but we're not quite there yet.
Speaker 1: From what I understand, the the door to a NATO entry is more or less shut for Ukraine. But what you're saying essentially is that you hold you're holding NATO responsible for the war. You're saying this is a war they're making?
Speaker 0: Look. I was there when Gorbachev ended unilaterally the Soviet military pact called the Warsaw Pact. He ended it and said peace, and The United States should have ended NATO at that moment. But The United States didn't end NATO. The United States immediately said, we expand NATO.
Actually, not immediately. They told president Gorbachev on 02/07/1990, James Baker the third, NATO will not move one inch eastward, not one inch. Hans Dietrich Genscher, the foreign minister of Germany, NATO will not move eastward at all. I was there in those days. They promised.
They lied. When the Soviet Union ended, president Clinton in 1994 began NATO enlargement. And Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book in 1997 explaining Russia will have no choice but to acquiesce. So it was kind of like playing a poker game. They gambled they gambled Ukraine's safety, and they lost.
And it was a terrible mistake. And all of the senior diplomats in The United States knew it at the time. Jack Matlock, George Kennan, people that I was dealing with knew that this was a disastrous policy, very dangerous and very provocative. But the politicians went ahead with it anyway because they had the idea that The US was the sole super power and it could do what it wants. We don't need these wars.
This is the most basic point. We do not need conflict. They make no sense. Wars are the result of politics. You end the war not by war, but by political solutions.
You end the war in Ukraine by Ukrainian neutrality and stopping NATO enlargement. You end the war in The Middle East by a state of Palestine as an independent sovereign state living in peace with Israel. It's obvious. You end the conflicts in East Asia by not having a US military buildup all around the East Asian seaways. This is straightforward.
India can help bring that about. I love Ukraine. I advised Ukraine for years, but it's deadly to to believe The United States is gonna save you and that you can therefore host military bases on Russia's border. Russia won't accept it, just like The United States didn't accept bases in Cuba of the Russian military. In a million years, they would never accept it.
And Donald Trump believes that Canada belongs to The United States, and Panama belongs to The United States, and Greenland belongs to The United States. He has no inhibition about that, but then he thinks the American military belongs in Taiwan, shipping military armaments. No. This is a recipe for war. It's obvious.
Speaker 1: Professor Sachs, We are we are completely out of time, but one last quick question, thirty seconds. AI is the buzzword now. Countries across the world, leaders across the world are trying to figure out how to negotiate with Trump. Do you think artificial intelligence can negotiate a better deal than Donald Trump?
Speaker 0: Honest to God, if you ask Chad GPP or DeepSeek any question, it'll give you a better answer than the existing UN Security Council. And one reason is it'll give you both sides of the argument. It'll say some say this and some say that. If you listen to The US, there's only one side ever because it's propaganda. It's narrative.
And at least what AI reminds us is if it's good AI, if it's perplexity or chat GPT or deep seek, yeah, it'll give you the the arguments on both sides. If we start with arguments on both sides and actually sit down and talk with each other in this world, we will have a peaceful world.
Speaker 1: I think that's a fantastic note to end on. Thank you very much, professor Jeffrey Sachs. Thank
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe Jeffrey Sachs deserves a Nobel Prize for exposing the truth about the Syrian crisis, which he attributes to a U.S. presidential order rather than Assad's actions. He criticizes the Israeli government's influence over U.S. policy, labeling Netanyahu a mass murderer. Chris Hedges highlights the devastating impact of Israel's actions in Gaza, drawing parallels to historical atrocities. Former IDF soldier Ido Gal Razon shares his trauma from participating in violence against Palestinians. There's a strong sentiment that Israel operates as a criminal enterprise, controlling U.S. politics and media.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
🏆 Jeffrey Sachs Should Be A Nobel Prize Winner The Greatest Truth Teller of Our Time! Jeffrey Sachs "KILLED" MAINSTREAM NARRATIVE 'CIA operation Timber Sycamore created Syrian crisis' ‘US Trained Jihadists & Then…’: Sensational Syria Revelation At Antalya Forum So this war in Syria did not come from Assad's repression. It did not come from Assad's dictatorship. This war came from a presidential order by Obama to overthrow Assad, starting in the spring of 2011.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker argues Netanyahu seeks to make The Middle East in Israel's image and overthrow opponents, aided by the CIA and the United States. He claims the Syria war originated from 'a presidential order by Obama to overthrow Assad starting in the 2011' through 'Operation Timber Sycamore,' with US-led arming of rebels including jihadists, yielding '600,000 dead in Syria.' He says the CIA intended the jihadist group to take power in Syria. He calls for 'real diplomacy' not CIA operations and says the wars in the region are driven by outside powers, with 'America provides the financing' and 'Israel couldn't fight for one day without The United States backing.' He asserts there is 'no international community' and that the US blocked the peace process, leading to '500,000' dead since then, concluding that empires divide to rule and urging US withdrawal for regional self-determination.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That stretches back more than twenty five years. Netanyahu's idea is make The Middle East in Israel's image. Overthrow every government that opposes Israel. He's had a friend in that and that is the CIA and the United States government. So this war in Syria did not come from Assad's repression.
It did not come from Assad's dictatorship. This war came from a presidential order by Obama to overthrow Assad starting in the 2011. We have a name for this program. It was Operation Timber Sycamore. The United States together with other countries in this region trained rebel trained fighters, especially jihadists including the ones that just took power to overthrow the regime.
This created chaos. 600,000 dead in Syria in a war that has gone on for fourteen years. The outcome of this war is what the CIA wanted back in 02/2011, which is that the jihad group would take power in Syria after being armed by The United States. The reason I wanna be clear about this is that we will not have peace in this region until we have public diplomacy that is based on real diplomacy, not on CIA operations. And we will not have peace until Israel stops its militarization of the entire Middle East because the Syrian war is just one of six wars that Israel has promoted including in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan.
We had the list actually from Wesley Clark back in 2001 when he was handed a paper in the Pentagon that the goal was seven wars in five years. The only war that hasn't taken place yet to Netanyahu's great consternation is the US war with Iran, which Israel is still trying to instigate to this very day. So the Syrian war is part of a regional tragedy. We have tragedy in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, South Sudan, and Libya that I put at the hands of the United States government and its ally Israel because none of these wars had to happen. These were all wars of choice.
They were all wars that came from the idea of regime change operations that The United States would determine which regimes operate in which countries. We'll never have peace in this region if outside imperial powers like The United States are dictating the terms to this region. The only way to have peace in this region is if this region is determining its own future, not outside powers. And Israel could never do these wars on its own. These are American wars.
America provides the financing. It provides the military backup. It provides the naval support. It provides the intelligence operations. It provides the munitions.
Israel couldn't fight for one day without The United States backing. Israel could not be committing a genocide in Gaza without The United States full operational complicity. I don't mean political complicity, I mean direct daily operational complicity. This has to end. This region has been divided for one hundred years first by the British Empire and then by the American Empire.
And this is going on until today. We have a genocide going on right next door. Till today, till this morning. People being wantonly killed, brazenly killed because The United States is providing the means for this. So this is what's happening in Syria.
Is The US on the fence? Hardly. It's the major actor. I know by the way, I know firsthand that in 02/2012, UN Secretary General Ban Ki moon appointed former Secretary General Kofi Annan as special envoy to reach a peace in Syria. I loved Kofi Annan.
I love Ban Ki moon. I worked for both of them. Kofi Annan arranged a peace in 2012. He arranged a peace in Syria. You know why it didn't happen?
Because all the parties agreed to peace except one. Literally one. That was The United States Of America. The United States Of America said there will be no peace unless Bashar al Assad goes the first day. The other party said no no, you can't just determine that.
Maybe there'll be a process, maybe there'll be elections agreed, maybe there'll be a two year process, a three year process. The United States said no. Assad must go the first day of any agreement or we block it. And so Kofi Annan stepped down from his position after having negotiated a peace arrangement and we have had 500,000 people dead since then. We should not allow this kind of criminality to be normal.
This region has been at war nonstop for thirty years. Actually I would say for at least fifty seven years since the Six Day War because there has been no honest accounting of international law, no honest diplomacy. It's been militarization all the way through and we could have peace immediately in this region. All that is required in my view is The United States change its veto of Palestine as the hundred ninety fourth UN member state because on that basis, all the region would normalize relations and the wars all across this region would stop. But Israel has had control of over US policy.
And it says no. It wants greater Israel. It wants Israel in Syria. It wants Israel in Lebanon. It wants Israel in the West Bank.
It wants Israel in East Jerusalem. It wants Israel in Gaza. And until that stops, we're not going to have peace. So is The US on the fence? Of course not.
It's the major protagonist of this whole war and has been for the last fourteen years. I am not discussing the agency of the Syrian people. I'm discussing the opposite. Do not be naive. Do not think that 600,600 people died because of Assad and the protesters.
This was a war. Wars are expensive. They require billions of dollars. They require armaments. And I'm not talking about a conspiracy theory.
I'm talking about a conspiracy. And you should know. Everybody go look up Operation Timber Sycamore. Understand what happened in your region. And if you think that calling in the CIA is gonna do the bidding of agency in this region, you are sadly mistaken.
This region has been manipulated by Britain, France, and The United States for one hundred years since the Versailles treaty. It will not have safety or peace until The United States is out of this region through manipulation and war. You all say well it's Israel doing this. It's the same thing I'm talking about. It's the same reason for Operation Timber Sycamore.
It's not an independent fact, it's the reason why this happened. I'm the last to denigrate agency. I'm telling you exactly the opposite. If you think your big friend The United States is gonna do your bidding and help you get your way, Empires divide to rule. They are not doing the bidding of Turkey or Syria or Lebanon or anybody else in this region.
And if this is, yes, you want to balance Persia or Iran, you call in The United States to do that and you think this is going to work out well, it's not going to work out well. This region has three major powers. The Arab world, the Turkish world, and and and the Persian world. It's been more than a thousand years this way. I said to Iranian diplomats that Iran has been five thousand years.
I was corrected seven thousand years. It's a long story. You don't need The United States to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. And don't believe that this happened because of the agency of the Syrian people. I'm sorry.
I'm not denigrating the Syrian people, just the opposite. I know what happened. I know what my country does. I suspect most of you do too. And it should not be ignored because the wars are gonna continue until we have real agency, not pseudo agency.
And by the way, there is no international community. We're trying to make one, but it doesn't exist right now. That's the tragedy in this world. There is no community. There are interests.
There are militaries. There are regime change operations. This is not community. We need real community. And by the way, I give every day my volunteer time to the UN for twenty five years because I believe in it.
It's my life commitment. So I believe in community. I also happen to know that United States blocked the agreement in 02/2012. I'm sorry. I won't elaborate.
But The United States blocked it and I know it.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the Bucha incident has been misrepresented as a massacre, with claims that it was staged to manipulate public perception against Russia. Lavrov and others have pointed out inconsistencies, questioning the authenticity of the reported events and demanding transparency regarding the identities of the deceased. Some assert that the situation was exploited to justify ongoing conflict, suggesting that the narrative surrounding Bucha serves broader political agendas. The unfolding details continue to raise skepticism about the official accounts.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
The Bucha Massacre Was a False Flag Lavrov explained to NBC This Bucha incident was used to raise stakes against Russia in this situation. "Can you make sure that the names of the persons whose bodies were shown by BBC are made public?" Silence. https://t.co/QxTdihpMbL
Video Transcript AI Summary
Добрый день. И это о том, что я retaken by Ukrainian Authoritys, and the mayer of bucha, was on tv. 2days later. BBC, Broadcasting Team, Show the images of Central Street of the буча with bodys, doesens of bodys, lank in some interesting godder, и я Several Times, we an I vos in New York for the General Assembly Sessions, I was meeting with the media, including NBC correspondance. And I said: this butcha incident was used и я пользуюсь.
Good afternoon. This is about that I retaken by Ukrainian Authoritys, and the mayor of bucha was on tv. 2days later. BBC, Broadcasting Team, Show the images of Central Street of the буча with bodys, doesens of bodys, lank in some interesting godder. и я Several Times, we an I vos in New York for the General Assembly Sessions, I was meeting with the media, including NBC correspondance. And I said: this butcha incident was used и я пользуюсь.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Добрый день. И я Это и есть у нас о том, что я retaken by Ukrainian Authoritys, and the mayer of bucha, was on tv, thank how good that way canava city, and 2days later. BBC, Broadcasting Team, Show the images of Central Street of the буча with bodys, doesens of bodys, lank in some interesting godder, и я Several Times, we an I vos in New York for the General Assembly Sessions, I was meeting with the media, including NBC correspondance. And I said: this butcha incident was used и я пользуюсь.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the events in Bucha have been misrepresented as a staged massacre. Lukashenko claims it's a fabrication, asserting that bodies were manipulated to create a false narrative. Lavrov questions the legitimacy of the accusations against Russia, noting that evidence emerged only after Ukrainian forces arrived. Mercenary Philipp Siman's trial reveals that atrocities were committed against pro-Russian civilians by his battalion after the Russians had left. I see Bucha as a cover for political maneuvers by Ukraine and its allies to prolong the conflict.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
BUCHA IS A FAKE!!! ‘In war it is very easy to take bodies, tie their hands and throw them on the street. Bucha is a fake. We know the license plates of the cars of the organizers of this fake’ - Lukashenko. https://t.co/6cV0ZlYXUU
Video Transcript AI Summary
Собеседники спорят о Буче: один говорит, что это «хорошо спланированная акция…», чтобы показать агрессивность, кровожадность, убийцы россияне; другая сторона отвечает, что «ничего подобного там не было» и знает «номера автомобилей» организаторов БУДЖ, спрашивая, «почему это всё замяли на Западе?» Разговор переходит к телам: «я своими глазами видел», «на войне… тела» — один настаивает, другой сомневается. Путин якобы говорил, что «вся Буча это фейк», но оппоненты утверждают, что их «спецслужбы» обращали внимание Запада, однако «вы замылили их».
Interlocutors discuss Bucha: one says it was a 'well-planned operation to show aggression, bloodlust, murderers'—the other counters that 'nothing like that happened there,' claiming to know 'car numbers' of the organizers of BUDZH and asking why it was hushed in the West. Bodies: 'I saw with my own eyes.' Putin allegedly said that 'all of Bucha is a fake,' while others say their 'intelligence services' drew the West's attention, and that 'you concealed them.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Упомянули Бучу, я там был в курсе, как это делалось. Знаю, знаю,
Speaker 1: что вы не в курсе дела, как это делалось. А мы были в курсе. Сразу после. Вы не заметили, что там всё не так было, как показывали. Это была хорошо спланированная акция, чтобы показать агрессивность, кровожадность, убийцы россияне и прочее.
Ничего подобного там не было, и мы знаем, кто это делал, и мы знаем номера автомобилей, на которых приехали организаторы БУДЖ. И я об этом публично говорил. Почему это всё замяли на Западе?
Speaker 0: Больно это слышать, я своими глазами видел
Speaker 1: зверства. Подождите, зверств вы не видели, вы видели тела. Да, тела. На войне очень просто взять тела это кощунство, конечно, но война есть война, как вы сказали. Связать руки сзади и бросить на улицу невозможно это?
Speaker 0: Я лично в это не верю, то есть я видел, что я видел. Не в вашем обществе. Я знаю, что Владимир Путин заявлял, что вся бучая это фейк, то есть я понял, что вы солидарны с ним.
Speaker 1: Абсолютно потому, что мы конкретно, наши спецслужбы, конкретно обращали внимание Запада на некоторые вещи. Вы замылили их. На каких автомобилях кто проезжал, кто это делал, мы знаем.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the Bucha massacre is part of a long history of false flag operations aimed at inciting war. I assert that the victims were killed by Ukrainian forces, not Russians. Sergey Lavrov has called for Ukraine to disclose the identities of those shown in Bucha, questioning the timing and authenticity of the events. Some argue that the incident was a strategic move by Ukraine to justify its withdrawal from peace talks, while others highlight the manipulation of narratives surrounding the tragedy to serve political ends. Eyewitness accounts suggest it was staged to disrupt negotiations.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
The Bucha Massacre Was a False Flag George Galloway: I believe it belongs in the long line of false flag operations used to trigger war. I am absolutely certain that the people who were massacred at Bucha were massacred by the Nazis that are the foundation stone of the existing ukrainian state. Russia's Lavrov demands Ukraine to publish names of 'the people whose bodies were shown in Bucha' Sept. 22.2022 We still waiting ...
Video Transcript AI Summary
Bucha massacre. I've been to Bucha, so I want to play this clip. So I don't believe that Bucha was a war crime. I believe it belongs in the long line of false flag operations used to trigger war False flag? Absolutely. It was a massacre carried out. Have you been there? No. It was a Have you spoken to the people? There. I'd be killed if I went be killed by been to Besiktivas Russia. It's because you're chilling for him. Zelenskyy would have me killed if I went there. I am absolutely certain that the people who were massacred at Bucha were massacred by the Nazis that are the foundation stone of the existing Ukrainian state.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Bucha massacre. I've been to Bucha, so I want to play this clip. So I don't believe that Bucha was a war crime. I believe it belongs in the long line of false flag operations used to trigger war False flag? Absolutely.
It was a massacre carried out. Have you been there? No. It was a Have you spoken to the people? There.
I'd be killed if I went be killed by been to Besiktivas Russia. It's because you're chilling for him. Zelenskyy would have me killed if I went there. I am absolutely certain that the people who were massacred at Bucha were massacred by the Nazis that are the foundation stone of the existing Ukrainian state.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
I Want to Hear Over and Over Again 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🔥🔥🔥 CNN’s Christiane Amanpour and Russia's Sergey Lavrov discuss PUSSY https://t.co/h8htrZmHkU
Video Transcript AI Summary
Russia had its own pussy riot moment.
"What do you think of Donald Trump's pussy riot moment?"
"Well, I don't know whether this would English is not my mother tongue, I don't know whether I would sound, I mean, decent."
"There are so many pussies around your presidential campaign on both sides that I prefer not to comment about this."
"Oh my goodness."
"I wasn't expecting that."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Russia had its own pussy riot moment. What do you think of Donald Trump's pussy riot moment? Well, I don't know whether this would English is not my mother tongue, I don't know whether I I would sound, I mean, decent. There are so many pussies around your presidential campaign on both sides that I prefer not to comment about this. Oh my goodness.
I wasn't expecting that.
reSee.it AI Summary
For the past decade, I've observed how foreign powers have aimed to dismantle Syria, often misrepresented in Western media as a civil war. Rather than a direct invasion, the strategy has involved inciting and arming minority groups, deploying mercenaries, and spreading propaganda. I’ve come across various sources detailing US arms shipments to rebels, the role of AIPAC, and the manipulation of narratives surrounding events like chemical attacks. These insights reveal a complex web of covert operations and misinformation shaping the ongoing conflict.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
ICYMI: The Covert War on Syria For the past decade, foreign powers have sought to destroy Syria. Most people are unaware since western corporate media pretend the violence is the result of a revolution or civil war. A direct invasion of Syria would pose difficult political problems. The preferred method in the modern world is to destroy a nation by agitating and arming minority groups while sending thousands of foreign mercenaries to join attacks and flooding the world with propaganda. “US arms shipment to Syria rebels detailed”; HIS Jane’s 360; April 8, 2016 web.archive.org/web/2016120508… “AIPAC to go all-out on Syria”; Manu Raju; Politico; September 5, 2013 https://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/aipac-syria-096344 "The Red Line and the Rat Line"; Seymour Hersh; London Review of Books; April 17, 2014; explains the false flag chemical attacks https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n08/seymour-m.-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line “The White Helmets are a Propaganda Construct”; The Corbett Report; February 11, 2018; https://corbettreport.com/the-white-helmets-are-a-propaganda-construct/ "Leaked docs expose massive Syria propaganda operation waged by Western govt contractors and media"; Ben Norton; The Grayzone; September 23, 2020; https://thegrayzone.com/2020/09/23/syria-leaks-uk-contractors-opposition-media/ “A Short History of the War on Syria 2006-2014”; Moon of Alabama; September 14, 2013; https://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/09/a-short-history-of-the-war-on-syria-2006-2014.html "Outgoing Syria Envoy Admits Hiding US Troop Numbers"; (thwarting President Trump's withdrawal plan); Katie Bo Williams; Defense One; November 12, 2020; https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/11/outgoing-syria-envoy-admits-hiding-us-troop-numbers-praises-trumps-mideast-record/170012/ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ours_8ygO0A
Video Transcript AI Summary
For the past decade, foreign powers have sought to destroy Syria. "Israel wants to reclaim Southern Syria, Turkey wants to reclaim Northern Syria, and the Persian Gulf states want a secure route for a natural gas pipeline to Europe." The "American Empire" seeks to destroy any nation that fails to open its economy to Western corporations. The preferred method... "to destroy a nation by agitating and arming minority groups while sending thousands of foreign mercenaries" and "funded by foreign intelligence agencies via massive arms smuggling that supplied billions of dollars in weapons to so called rebels." "American weaponry included expensive shoulder fired surface to air missiles and large anti tank weapons, like the American TOW system." By the end of 2,015, the Syrian government had lost control of most of its territory. "Russia announced that any aircraft that bombed Syrian forces would be shot down." "Israel expanded its Druze militias in Southern Syria" and "American aircrafts and artillery supported Kurdish forces" into Eastern Syria. "The White Helmets" were "founded in 2013 by a British ex military officer" and "funded to the tune of $100,000,000 by The US, UK, and Europe"—they "purport to be rescuing civilians" yet "no one in Eastern Aleppo has heard of them." "The covert war on Syria killed over 400,000 people and pushed 5,000,000 refugees." "Seven years has been a disaster under Obama" with "CIA and Saudi Arabia together" fueling a "proxy war" that brought ISIS; get out. The plot to destroy Syria failed as it reconquered most of its territory.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For the past decade, foreign powers have sought to destroy Syria. Most people are unaware since Western corporate media pretend the violence is the result of revolution or civil war. The truth is that Israel wants to reclaim Southern Syria, Turkey wants to reclaim Northern Syria, and the Persian Gulf states want a secure route for a natural gas pipeline to Europe. In addition, the American Empire seeks to destroy any nation that fails to open its economy to Western corporations and supports whatever Israel undertakes. A direct invasion of Syria would pose difficult political problems.
The preferred method in the modern world is to destroy a nation by agitating and arming minority groups while sending thousands of foreign mercenaries to join attacks. Details are explained in the tale link below: The Plot to Destroy Syria. It was assumed that these powerful nations could quickly destroy Syria, as they did in Libya. This proved difficult because Syrian President Bashar al Assad, pictured with his wife, is smart and popular. He was studying to become an eye doctor in London before his dad died in February.
The Assad family has ruled Syria for decades and threatened no nation. President Assad is popular among the Syrian people. He provides social services and protects minorities, including 2,000,000 Christians. Few Americans understand this war because of corporate propaganda. This is not a civil war, but an invasion by foreign mercenaries who also armed and trained dissidents.
This was funded by foreign intelligence agencies via massive arms smuggling that supplied billions of dollars in weapons to so called rebels. See the tell link below about the illegal arms shipments from Algazi, Libya, coordinated by the US State Department. American weaponry included expensive shoulder fired surface to air missiles and large anti tank weapons, like the American TOW system shown here. The evidence of American involvement was so widespread that political leaders admitted arming Islamic terrorists in Syria, but insisted they be called moderate rebels. American government websites even posted details on massive arms shipments.
See the link below. By the end of 2,015, the Syrian government had lost control of most of its territory. However, the Syrian army proved tough and a stalemate developed. It was thought that a huge American bombing campaign could turn the tide, but the American public and Congress were not ready for another war, despite a major lobbying effort from AIPAC. The weapons of mass destruction threat was spun, but Syria defused it by agreeing to allow American contractors to destroy its chemical stockpiles.
Yet even after this, the gassed his own people ruse was tried twice. This failed to generate support for American airstrikes. Russia had not objected when Libya was destroyed, but decided to intervene to save Syria. It vetoed the effort to establish a UN sanctioned no fly zone over Syria, knowing this is just an excuse for a massive bombing campaign like was just done in Libya. Starting in December 2015, a few thousand Russian troops and dozens of aircraft arrived in Syria.
Russia announced that any aircraft that bombed Syrian forces would be shot down. Syria had formally requested United Nations member assistance to repel foreign aggression, and Russia and Iran responded as required by the UN Charter. This was a big surprise and resulted in a rapid reversal on the battlefield. The Russians infuriated Turkey by bombing rebel oil tankers that were openly hauling stolen Iraqi and Syrian oil to Turkey, so a Turkish general ordered the shoot down of a Russian fighter that had crossed their border for just a few seconds while turning. Turkey and much of Europe rely on oil and natural gas pipelines that flow through Turkey.
The Russians let Turkey know that their Syrian conquests would not be allowed, and any further provocations could result in the destruction of these pipelines. Turkey told its allies that their secret partition plan had become a bloody mess that caused over 3,000,000 refugees to flood Turkey, and it was not worth risking war with Russia. This displeased its allies, so they attempted a military coup in Turkey. This failed when the Russians learned of the plan and tipped off the Turkish president. As a result, another plan was devised.
Israel expanded its Druze militias in Southern Syria and provided occasional air support. American aircrafts and artillery supported Kurdish forces who invaded Eastern Syria from Iraq to continue the war after rebels lost interest in attacking. The Allies would support Kurdish dreams of an independent nation that included most of Northern Syria. This infuriated the Turks, who invaded much of the Turkish controlled region after warning the Americans to back off. This led to a stalemate in Syria that few Americans understand because of corporate propaganda.
One example was the fawning coverage of the so called White Helmets. This group was established by American and British intelligence funding to produce propaganda demonizing this government of Syria. The world was told they are a humanitarian rescue group, but Syrians only saw them on Western TV or winning an Academy Award for a documentary that was propaganda promoted by Israel via Hollywood. A great expose of the white helmets was produced by the Colbert Report, linked below. Propaganda common in Western media was exposed by independent reporter Eva Bartlett.
Speaker 1: You talk about the corporate media, the Western media, the lies, and all of this. Could you explain what you think might be the agenda from us in the western media and why we should lie, why the international organizations on the ground should lie, why we shouldn't believe all these, absolutely documentable facts that we see from the ground, these hospitals being bombed, these civilians who are talking about the atrocities that they have been experiencing. How can you justify calling all of us liars?
Speaker 2: Sure. Thank you.
Speaker 3: I mean, there are certainly honest journalists amongst the very, compromised establishment media. Let's start with your second question. So international organizations on the ground. Tell me which ones are on the ground in Eastern Aleppo. Yeah.
Okay. I'll tell you. There are none. There are none. These organizations are relying on Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is based in Coventry, UK, and which is one man.
They're relying on compromised groups like the White Helmets, which let's let's talk about the White Helmets. The White Helmets were fund were founded in 2013 by a British ex military officer. They have been funded to the tune of $100,000,000 by The US, UK, and Europe, and other states. They purport to be rescuing civilians in Eastern Aleppo and Idlib, yet no one in Eastern Aleppo has heard of them. And I say no one bearing in mind that now 95% of these areas of Eastern Aleppo are liberated.
The white helmets purport to be neutral, yet they can be found carrying guns and standing in the dead bodies of Syrian soldiers. And their video footage actually contains children that have been recycled in different reports. So you can find a girl named Aya who turns up in a report in month, say, August and she turns up in the next month in two different locations. So they are not credible. The SOHR is not credible.
Unnamed activists are not credible. Once or twice, maybe, but every time, not credible. So your sources on the ground, you don't have them. As for your agenda, not your, but the agenda of some corporate media, It is the agenda of regime change. How can the New York Times, I was reading it this morning, or how can democracy now, which I was reading the other day, maintain until this day that this is a civil war in Syria?
How can they maintain until this day that there were un that the protests were unarmed and nonviolent until, say, 2012? That is absolutely not true. How can they maintain that the Syrian government is attacking civilians in Aleppo when every person that's coming out of these areas occupied by terrorists is saying the opposite. How do I quantify the support of the Syrian people? The elections.
In 2014, the Syrian people held elections. The point being, overwhelmingly, the people support president Assad. There are people that want change in the government. We're not pretending they don't want change. Everybody wants change.
But in terms of support of the government, the point is they don't see president Assad as the problem. They see the problem as terrorism. They see elements of of of of problems in the the the system that they have there, but president Assad, they don't see as the problem. They actually overwhelmingly support him. So I'm basing it on their choice in their leader, and I'm basing it on my interactions with people in Syria.
Speaker 0: The plot to destroy Syria failed as it reconquered most of its territory, except for areas protected by Turkey and The United States. One last effort was made to promote a false flag chemical attack to justify a bombing campaign. Former British general Jonathan Shaw explained to Sky News that their story made no sense because Syria had won the war, so was promptly cut off.
Speaker 2: You think anything what we've heard from either Sergei Lavrov or indeed the Russian ambassador has made it more difficult for The UK to launch any kind of attack without putting it to parliament? You know, I don't I I
Speaker 4: think quite apart from all that, the the the debate that seems to be missing from this is, and this was actually mentioned by the by the, the ambassador, was what possible motive might have, triggered Syria to launch a chemical attack at this time in this place? You know, the Syrians are winning. Don't take my word for it. Take the American military's word. General Virgil, the head of, CENTCOM, he said to congress the other day, America Assad has won this war, and we need to face that.
So and then then you got last week the the statement by Trump or tweet by Trump that that America had finished with ISIL, and we're gonna pull out soon, very soon. And then suddenly you
Speaker 2: get Okay. I'm I'm I'm I'm very sorry. You've been very patient waiting for us, but we do need to leave it there. I'm very sorry. Thank you very much indeed.
More to come on Sky News. Do stay tuned.
Speaker 0: The covert war on Syria killed over 400,000 people and pushed 5,000,000 refugees into neighboring countries. In 02/2018, professor Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia University was invited by a major news network to discuss Syria. He shocked everyone by telling the truth.
Speaker 5: President Obama said, Assad must go. Mhmm. And I looked at you and Joe, and I said, how's he gonna do that? Where's the policy for that? Right.
And we know they sent in the CIA to overthrow Assad. The CIA and Saudi Arabia together, in covert operations tried to overthrow Assad. It was a disaster. Eventually, it brought in both ISIS as a splinter group to the jihadist that went in. It also brought in Russia.
So we have been digging deeper and deeper and deeper. What we should do now is get out and not continue to throw missiles, not have a confrontation with Russia. Seven years has been a disaster under Obama, continuing under Trump. This is what I would call the permanent state. This is, the CIA.
This is, Pentagon wanting to keep Iran and Russia out of Syria, but no way to do that. And so we have made a proxy war in Syria. It's killed 500,000 people, displaced 10,000,000, and I'll say predict ably so, because I predicted it seven years ago that there was no way to do this, and that it would make a complete chaos. So what I would plead to president Trump is get out, like instinct told him by That the was his instinct, but then all the establishment, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Pentagon, everybody said, no, no, that's irresponsible. But his instinct is right.
Get out. We've done enough damage, seven years, and now we really risk a confrontation with Russia that is extraordinarily dangerous, reckless.
AIPAC to go all-out on Syria
Officials say some 250 Jewish leaders and activists will head to the Hill next week
politico.com
Seymour M. Hersh · The Red Line and the Rat Line: Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels · LRB 16 April 2014
The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has...
lrb.co.uk
The White Helmets Are A Propaganda Construct | The Corbett Report
Contrary to what its multi-million dollar international PR campaign would have you believe, the “White Helmets” are not a group of volunteer search-and-rescue workers that sprang spontaneously out of the Syrian soil. When you peel back the layers of foreign financing and reveal the foreign intelligence operatives and murky lobbying…
corbettreport.com
Leaked docs expose massive Syria propaganda operation waged by Western govt contractors and media - The Grayzone
Western government-funded intelligence cutouts trained Syrian opposition leaders, planted stories in media outlets from BBC to Al Jazeera, and ran a cadre of journalists. A trove of leaked documents exposes the propaganda network. (Puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) Update (September 29, 2020): A few days after this article was published, the authenticity of
thegrayzone.com
Outgoing Syria Envoy Admits Hiding US Troop Numbers; Praises Trump’s Mideast Record
‘We were always playing shell games,’ says Amb. Jim Jeffrey, who also gives advice to President-elect Biden.
defenseone.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I reflected on David Rockefeller’s 1991 speech at a Bilderberg meeting, where he thanked the media for keeping globalist plans discreet. He noted that the world was ready to embrace a form of world government. Fast forward to today, and it seems that globalists are still striving for comprehensive financial and political control, utilizing initiatives like the WEF’s Great Reset, Agenda 2030, CBDCs, and the influence of organizations such as NATO, the IMF, the WHO, and the EU.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
THROWBACK: David Rockefeller’s leaked 1991 plans for a New World Order 🔴 Speaking at a Bilderberg Club meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany in June 1991, at the height of US triumphalism over the end of the Cold War, Rockefeller expressed gratitude to the mainstream media for their “discretion” on the globalist elites’ shady plans. 🔴 “But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march toward a world government,” Rockefeller, who was also a lifelong member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and cofounder of the Trilateral Commission, proclaimed. 🔴 Decades on, globalists are continuing their attempts to gain total financial and political control of the world through instruments ranging from the WEF’s Great Reset to Agenda 2030, CBDCs, NATO’s transatlantic militarization and globalist institutions like the IMF, the WHO and the EU.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In a 1991 closed-door meeting, David Rockefeller expressed gratitude to media outlets like The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Time Magazine for maintaining discretion for almost forty years. He stated this discretion allowed them to develop their plan for the world without the hindrance of publicity. Rockefeller added that the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march toward world government. The aim is to create a world system of financial control in private hands, able to dominate each country's political system and the world's economy, seeking total and quiet control of the entire world.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: At a 1991 closed door meeting of fellow internationalists, billionaire and former CFR chairman David Rockefeller praised his media allies. But his confidence that his words would not leave the room was later broken.
Speaker 1: We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other publications whose directors have attended our meetings and restricted their policies of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the right fights of publicity. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march toward the world government.
Speaker 0: That these men aim to create a world system of financial control in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. In short, they seek total and quiet control of the entire world.
reSee.it AI Summary
Ten years ago, the leaked call between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt revealed American officials selecting Ukraine's government. Nuland supported Yatsenuk, who became Prime Minister. Elon Musk pointed out that Nuland is a key proponent of the ongoing conflict.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Ten years ago in 2014, the infamous phone call between Victoria Nuland & Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked. The American officials are heard hand-picking the Ukrainian government. Nuland bet on Yatsenuk, who became Prime Minister of Ukraine. Elon Musk @elonmusk Nobody is pushing this war more than Nuland
reSee.it AI Summary
The conversation centers on the US and NATO's involvement in the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine, highlighting Victoria Nuland's role in various US interventions over the past three decades. The initial post introduces a multimedia perspective on the consequences of US and EU actions in Ukraine, referencing organizations like the CIA and USAID. Subsequent responses provide links to additional content related to these themes, suggesting a focus on the broader implications of foreign intervention in Ukraine's political landscape.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
The US/NATO Orchestration of the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine Victoria Nuland Had a Hand in Every US Intervention in the Past 30 Years Welcome to Nulandistan: A Multimedia Look at What the US and EU Have Unleashed on Ukraine CIA, USAID, NED and a whole host of other US tentacles
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
THE PLANNING OF THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA A video, filmed during John McCain’s visit to Ukraine in 2016, has resurfaced. It shows the senator accompanied by his colleague and friend, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
THE PLANNING OF THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA https://www.voltairenet.org/article217092.html?fbclid=IwAR3ukSv4lnEnOlKumjug_9i0Sz1tJ3vOr2oSvac2U0xINI3-GRYA7idClFM
The secret Ukrainian military programs, by Thierry Meyssan
In 2016, the United States committed to arming Ukraine to fight and win a war against Russia. Subsequently, the US Department of Defense (…) [Voltaire Network ]
voltairenet.org
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
THE PLANNING OF THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA https://www.voltairenet.org/article217092.html?fbclid=IwAR3ukSv4lnEnOlKumjug_9i0Sz1tJ3vOr2oSvac2U0xINI3-GRYA7idClFM
The secret Ukrainian military programs, by Thierry Meyssan
In 2016, the United States committed to arming Ukraine to fight and win a war against Russia. Subsequently, the US Department of Defense (…) [Voltaire Network ]
voltairenet.org
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
OSCE Reports Reveal Ukraine Started Shelling The Donbas Nine Days Before Russia's 'Special Military Operation' The Biden Administration, U.S. political officials, and the corporate media are lying the American public into World War III. https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/osce-reports-reveal-ukraine-started
OSCE Reports Reveal Ukraine Started Shelling The Donbas Nine Days Before Russia's 'Special Military Operation'
The Biden Administration, U.S. political officials, and the corporate media are lying the American public into World War III.
kanekoa.news
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
The grandmother who made the mess eight years ago has arrived. The criminal always returns to the scene of the crime. Victoria Nuland sniffed along with Zelensky in Kiev and spewed the following nonsense
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
reSee.it AI Summary
NATO has not been a force for peace; instead, it has instigated conflict. Its actions seem to create problems that it later attempts to solve. Recently, NATO is deploying 5,000 soldiers near the Russian Arctic border, raising tensions further, while Zelensky is reportedly planning new attacks on Russia.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
NATO DID NOT PROMOTE PEACE, NATO PROMOTED WARS NATO has never defended anyone, but only attacked!!! NATO exists to solve the problems created by NATO’s existence. NATO is deploying a new military group near Russian Arctic border! NATO is deploying 5,000 soldiers 300 km from the Russian navy's base in Murmansk! Zelensky plans to launch new terrorist attacks on Russia!
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Scott Ritter: Let me remind everybody, Donald Trump started this war. He tries to blame it on Joe Biden, but Donald Trump started this war. Donald Trump's a liar, and the Russians are just like, "Who is this man-child?" https://t.co/9Ex6rnBWFU
reSee.it AI Summary
When people blame Putin for the war, I point out that it actually began in 2014. Turchynov, known as "the Bloody Pastor," ordered bombings in Donbas, leading to a conflict aimed at destabilizing Russia and overthrowing Putin, rather than starting in 2022.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
When They Blame Putin for Starting the War, Show Them This. How the War in Ukraine Actually Began 2014 The CIA Uses Anyone and Anything, Turchynov (Ukrainians nicknamed Turchynov "the Bloody Pastor") ordered the bombing of Donbas's peaceful cities. The entire war in Ukraine, which I believe started 2014, not in 2022, was an effort to kill Russians and destabilize, if they could, the Russian government and, overthrow Vladimir Putin.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2014, Turchinov announced the war in the East of Ukraine and ordered the bombing of Donbas. Ukrainians nicknamed him the bloody pastor.
The war in Ukraine started in 2014 as an effort to kill Russians and destabilize the Russian government to overthrow Vladimir Putin. The CIA uses religion.
Since Ukraine's independence, the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarch has been under pressure, which turned to religious war in 2023. There have been hundreds of attacks on Ukrainian Orthodox priests, dozens of whom have been imprisoned. Ukraine's nationalist ideologists call to burn Russian Orthodox churches. Ukrainian police and military participate in seizing Orthodox shrines.
Monks in the Kyiv Picheska Lavra were ordered to leave, and the abbot was detained. Seized churches fall to newly formed Ukrainian churches. A Runvira Obelisk with nationalist ruins inscribed Lev Silenko is installed at the entrance to Kyiv Pachyska Lavra. The inscription says Silenko lit the sacred fire of the Ukrainian spiritual revolution.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In 2014, Turchinov announced the beginning of the war in the East of then unified Ukraine. He ordered the bombing of Donbas' peaceful cities. Ukrainians nicknamed Turchinov the bloody pastor. Throughout his tenure in the country's highest echelons of power, Turchinov preached regularly from the pulpit of the Word of Life Baptist Church in Kyiv.
Speaker 1: The
Speaker 2: entire war in Ukraine, which
Speaker 3: I believe started twenty fourteen, fourteen, not in 2022, was an effort to kill Russians and destabilize, if they
Speaker 1: could, the Russian government and, overthrow Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 3: So the CIA uses anyone and anything if there's a religion.
Speaker 0: Ever since Ukraine became an independent state, the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarch has been under pressure. In 2023, with the blessing of European and US human rights organizations, the pressure turned to outright religious war. In the last twelve months alone, there have been hundreds of attacks on Ukrainian Orthodox priests, dozens of whom have been imprisoned. On live TV and without hesitation, Ukraine's nationalist ideologists call on their fellow citizens to burn Russian Orthodox churches. Ukrainian police and military participate in seizing Orthodox shrines.
The monks in Ukraine's oldest monastery, the Kyiv Picheska Lavra, were ordered to leave their cells, and the abbot was detained. Seized churches fall into the hands of the newly formed Ukrainian churches. A Runvira Obelisk with nationalist ruins inscribed Lev Silenko, the sect's founder, is installed at the entrance to captured Kyiv Pachyska Lavra. The inscription says, Silenko lit the sacred fire of the Ukrainian spiritual revolution, a fire that has already destroyed many, many lives and continues to rage.
reSee.it AI Summary
Azerbaijan finds itself at the center of geopolitical maneuvering, acting as a pawn for Israel and British interests against Russia and Iran. As Israel's primary arms supplier in the Muslim world, Azerbaijan heavily relies on Israeli military imports, especially during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The country also plays a crucial role in supplying oil to Israel and engaging in intelligence-sharing. Meanwhile, British investments in Azerbaijan's energy sector aim to destabilize Russia. The Zangezur Corridor project further integrates Azerbaijan into Western strategies, promoting separatism among Turkic minorities in Russia.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
🤔 Why Azerbaijan is 🇮🇱Israel's pawn & proxy for 🇬🇧British interests in the Caucasus Lying between Russia and Turkey, Azerbaijan has been caught in the tug-of-war, now serving foreign agendas — all in effort to de-stabilize Russia and weaken Iran. 🔴Netanyahu's Military Bro Azerbaijan is Israel’s top arms customer in the Muslim world. During the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, 69% of Azerbaijan’s military imports came from Israel (2023 data), including Harop suicide drones, Hermes surveillance UAVs, and LORA ballistic missiles. Flight tracking in 2024 revealed intensified cargo flights from Israel’s Ovda Airbase to Baku, suggesting ongoing weapons transfers ahead of Azerbaijan’s military operation in Karabakh. 🔴Israel’s Oil Lifeline Azerbaijan supplies 40% of Israel’s oil via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. In return, Israel provides not just weapons but also intelligence-sharing, particularly on Iran. In 2025, bilateral talks expanded to cybersecurity & AI cooperation. 🔴 Mountain Jewish Lobby Azerbaijan’s 30,000-strong Jewish community (concentrated in Quba’s "Red Settlement") holds disproportionate influence in business and politics. The 2017 "Azerbaijani Laundromat" scandal exposed $2.9 billion in bribes funneled through Jewish-linked NGOs to whitewash Azerbaijan’s image in Europe. 🔴Zangezur Corridor project with Brits British Petroleum (BP) controls Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz gas field, making it a key alternative supplier to Europe amid sanctions on Russia. The Zangezur Corridor project – designed to connect Turkey to Central Asia – is jointly steered by British investors & Israeli security firms. In 2025, Azerbaijani banks negotiated with the Bank of England on crypto-based trade financing. 🔴Undermining Russia's soft underbelly Britain’s pan-Turkic project aims to destabilize Russia and Central Asia, pulling post-Soviet states into the Western orbit. Azerbaijan’s strategy focuses on Western integration through energy and transit, with BP controlling its energy sector and pushing Russia out. Baku also fuels separatism among Turkic minorities in Russia, like Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, aligning them with pro-Turkish, pro-Azerbaijan, and NATO interests.
reSee.it AI Summary
Netanyahu’s claim of predicting 9/11 has fueled theories suggesting Israel had prior knowledge or involvement. On that day, five Israelis were seen celebrating on a rooftop in New Jersey, later detained by the FBI. They were linked to a moving company, with evidence suggesting possible espionage, including maps of the WTC and explosives. Reports indicated some were Mossad agents. In the aftermath, Israeli officials acknowledged that Israel "benefited" from the attacks, with Netanyahu drawing parallels to Pearl Harbor, reflecting on the potential for a shift in U.S. foreign policy.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Netanyahu’s old boast that he predicted 9/11 has been jet fuel for theories that Israel knew what was coming, or worse, was in on it. Dancing Israelis On the morning of 9/11, a New Jersey woman spotted five Middle Eastern-looking men sitting on the roof of a white van, filming & celebrating while watching the WTC burn across the Hudson. Detained by the FBI, the men turned out to be Israelis, in the US illegally, working for ‘Urban Moving Systems’, a possible Mossad front. Looking “visibly happy” in seized photos, one was snapped holding a lit lighter against the backdrop of the still-standing Twin Towers on Sept. 10, 2001, & again the next day. Another visited the towers on Sept. 10, claiming he was a construction worker. Maps of the WTC, cash, boxcutters & trace amounts of explosives were found in their van. Controlled demolition? Held 71 days, the men were deported. Appearing on Israeli TV, one said he & his comrades were in NYC “to document the event” (9/11). 🌏 In 2002, The Forward revealed at least two of the men were Mossad agents. One had a diplomatic passport. 🌏 In 2003, Fox News revealed 60+ Israelis had been arrested post-9/11, including active-duty military and spies. Before 9/11, up to 140 were caught engaging in “organized intelligence gathering activity.” 🌏 After detention, the majority “stated they served in military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept and or explosive ordnance units.” 🌏 A March 2001 counter-intelligence report revealed Mossad had spied on Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers. 🌏 In the attacks’ aftermath, Netanyahu & ex-Mossad boss Efraim Halevy said Israel “benefited” from 9/11. 🌏 In a 2001 home movie, Netanyahu said he knows America “can easily be moved to the right direction.” 🌏On Sept. 12, he likened 9/11 to a new Pearl Harbor, echoing a chilling 2000 PNAC paper about the need for “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” to implement an aggressive neocon foreign policy & carve up the Middle East.
Video Transcript AI Summary
**Original Language Summary:**
スピーカーたちはテレビに映っているか、またはテレビがないという話題から始まる。機能しない部分が多いのではないかと推測し、公演などについても言及。ズームするとまだ燃えている様子が見え、周りのビルが全滅だと述べている。取材している人が死んでしまう可能性や、下からの様子について話している。何故何も出ないのか疑問に思い、崩れたという言葉で終わる。
**English Translation:**
The speakers begin by discussing whether they are on TV or the fact that they don't have a TV. They speculate that many things may not be functioning. They mention performances and observe that zooming in reveals ongoing fire. They state that surrounding buildings are destroyed. They discuss the possibility of reporters dying and the view from below. They question why nothing is appearing and conclude by saying something collapsed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: き み し テレビ ちゃん と 映っ て る ?お 家 テレビ な い です 。だって 、あれ が 機 能 し な い っ て 結構 機 能 し な い 所 が 多 い ん じゃ ない? 何 が あっ た だ っ て 、 話 題 が 気 は し な い で しょ し て な い っ て 言っ て さ 。だから あ の 公 演 さ ん と か あ れ 言っ た じゃ ん 。 ええ え 、ズーム する と 中 余裕 燃 え て る ね ま だ 。
Speaker 1: 周り の ビル 全 滅 で しょ
Speaker 0: 。 取 材 し て る や つ は みんな 死ん じゃ う じゃ ん 。 下 に 行 く で しょ 。 お い 、あれ 半 端 じゃ け 良かっ た な 、今日 の 見 方 。すごい 。
Speaker 1: 今 の さ
Speaker 0: 、家事 で
Speaker 1: さ 、あれ し た ん じゃ な い
Speaker 0: よ ね ま ったく な い 下 から 行 か なかっ た 。
Speaker 1: 下 の ところ
Speaker 0: ねえ 、何 で 何 も 出 な い ん だ ろう ね。 あ 、崩れ た 。
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Why is NATO surrounding Russia with its bases even after the fall of the Soviet Union? ‘It was never about resisting communism’ – ex-President Medvedev https://t.co/tggpkjLxXO
Video Transcript AI Summary
Европейским лидерам помешали две вещи в воплощении принципов: неспособность противостоять курсу руководства США и Англии (Рейгану и Тэтчер), и надежды на сокрушение коммунизма. Коммунизма давно нет, хотя его пытались строить.
Элементы этой политики реализуются до сих пор, включая военное присутствие США в Европе, базы НАТО и попытки выстроить диалог с позиции силы. Дело не в коммунизме, а в тотальной русофобии.
**Translation:**
Two things prevented European leaders from implementing principles: the inability to resist the course of the US and British leadership (Reagan and Thatcher), and hopes for the destruction of communism. There has been no communism for a long time, although they tried to build it.
Elements of this policy are still being implemented, including the US military presence in Europe, NATO bases, and attempts to build a dialogue from a position of strength. The point is not communism, but total Russophobia.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: У себя этих европейских лидеров, но воплощению в жизнь этих принципов помешали две вещи. Во-первых, неспособность и нежелание европейских руководителей противостоять жёсткому курсу американского и английского руководства, а именно Рейгану и Тэтчер, и надежды на сокрушение коммунизма. Что любопытно, никакого коммунизма, как известно, давно нет. Но его и не было. Во всяком случае, мы его пытались строить.
Однако элементы этой политики реализуются до сих пор. В том числе усиленное военное присутствие США в Европе, многочисленные базы НАТО, попытки выстроить диалог с позиции силы. В чём дело? Значит, не в коммунизме, конечно, а в тотальной русофобии. МУЗЫКА
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Nuclear War Simulation Russia vs USA without hypersonic missiles https://t.co/Ab8YJcPIa5
Video Transcript AI Summary
In a full-scale nuclear war between Russia and the United States, each side would launch missiles upon detection of the other's launch. Initial strikes would involve high-altitude EMP attacks to disable electronics and power grids. Subsequent strikes would target command and control, nuclear launch facilities, and major cities to hinder postwar recovery.
Impacts would create fireballs as hot as the sun's core, followed by radioactive mushroom clouds, vaporizing people and causing fires and blindness. NATO allies like the UK and France would also be targeted. Firestorms would engulf cities, fanned by storm-level winds, igniting anything flammable.
The worst effect would be nuclear winter, caused by black carbon smoke from firestorms rising into the stratosphere. This smoke would spread globally, blocking sunlight and causing drastic temperature drops. Farmland in Kansas could cool by 20 degrees Centigrade, with other regions cooling almost twice as much. It is estimated that over five billion people could starve, including 99% of those in the US, Europe, Russia, and China.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What would happen if there was a full scale nuclear war between Russia and The United States? Based on non classified data, the aftermath might go something like this. When one side launches nuclear missiles, the other side detects them and fires back before impact. US submarine launched ballistic missiles from West Of Norway start striking Russia after about ten minutes, and Russian ones from North Of Canada start hitting The US a few minutes later. The very first strikes are high altitude EMP attacks, frying electronics and power grids by creating an electromagnetic pulse of tens of thousands of volts per meter.
The next strikes target command and control as well as nuclear launch facilities. Land based intercontinental ballistic missiles take about half an hour to arrive. Major cities are targeted, both because they contain military facilities and to stymie the enemy's postwar recovery. Some cruise missiles take hours to reach their target. Each impact creates a fireball about as hot as the core of the sun, followed by a radioactive mushroom cloud.
These intense explosions vaporize people nearby and cause fires and blindness further away. The fireball expansion then causes a blast wave that damages buildings, crushing nearby ones. The United Kingdom and France have nuclear capabilities and are obliged by NATO's Article five to defend The US. So Russia hits them too. Firestorms engulf many cities where storm level winds fan the flames, igniting anything that can burn, melting glass and some metals, and turning asphalt into flammable hot liquid.
But the explosions, the electromagnetic pulse, and the radioactivity aren't the worst part. Nuclear winter is, caused by the black carbon smoke from the nuclear firestorms. The Hiroshima atomic bomb caused such a firestorm, but today's hydrogen bombs are much more powerful. A large city like Moscow with almost 50 times more people can create much more smoke. And a firestorm sends plumes of black smoke up into the stratosphere, far above any rain clouds that would otherwise wash out the smoke.
This black smoke gets heated by sunlight, lofting it like a hot air balloon for up to a decade. High altitude jet streams are so fast that it takes only a few days for the smoke to spread across much of the Northern Hemisphere. In the meantime, Earth gets freezing cold even during the summer. With farmland in Kansas cooling by about 20 degrees centigrade or 40 degrees Fahrenheit, and other regions cooling almost twice as much. A recent scientific paper estimates that over five billion people could starve to death, including around ninety nine percent of those in The United States, Europe, Russia, and China.
We obviously don't know how many people will survive a nuclear war.
reSee.it AI Summary
I find it alarming that the U.S. views nuclear strikes with Russia as acceptable. Meanwhile, Russian missiles are operational, and they’ve upgraded their arsenal, while the U.S. still relies on outdated Minuteman missiles. The comparison of Russian Sarmat to American Minuteman is concerning.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
The U.S. considers an exchange of nuclear strikes with Russia acceptable! Russian missiles are already on combat duty, while American ones are still being developed! The Russians have already upgraded their nuclear missiles, but the Americans are still using the old Minuteman! Russian Sarmat vs. American Minuteman - that's crazy!
Video Transcript AI Summary
On 01/23/2025, President Trump advocated for reducing nuclear arsenals among the US, Russia, and China. Simultaneously, the National Nuclear Security Administration reported the deployment completion of B61-12 thermonuclear bombs in Europe, including at Turkey's Incirlik base, potentially exposing Turkey to Russian attack. These modernized, guided bombs have a 50-kiloton yield, exceeding the Hiroshima bomb's power. The NSA plans to produce the B61-13 bomb with a 360-kiloton yield.
Rear Admiral Thomas Buchanan stated the US finds exchanging nuclear strikes acceptable if it retains weapons for deterrence. Experts from the ROS Congress Foundation noted the accelerating pace of US nuclear weapons modernization, with the Pentagon receiving over 200 upgraded weapons in 2023. A Pentagon official stated nuclear modernization will take five years to prepare for the 2030s.
The "four ninety one report" considers managing escalation during nuclear strikes. Robert O'Brien advocated for modernizing B61-12 and 13 bombs and producing new land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Pentagon ordered Northrop Grumman to develop the next-generation GBSD intercontinental missile, planned for deployment in 2029, to replace the aging Minuteman III. The US is trying to catch up to Russia's Sarmat missile capabilities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On 01/23/2025, US president Donald Trump said that he believes it is right to seek a reduction in the nuclear arsenals of his country, Russia and China. He said this while speaking via video link to participants of the World Economic Forum in Davos. We would like to see a reduction in nuclear arsenals. I have discussed this with the head of the Russian state Vladimir Putin in the past, and China would also agree. At the same time, the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, Vincent, Jill Ruby presented a report on the completion of the deployment of b 61 dash 12 thermonuclear air bombs in Europe.
The document states that these nuclear weapons are now also at the Turkish Incirlik base, which is used by the US air force. And thus, they exposed Turkey to a possible attack by Russia according to the Adenlik newspaper, which came out with a publication at the January 2025. This article states that the modernization of thermonuclear weapons by The United States creates a threat to Turkey as well. These bombs will now be guided. The accuracy of the hit is increased by installing new TK, tail kit assembly.
The explosion of these munitions is so powerful that it is felt as an earthquake of three to four points. The power of the latest twelfth modification of the b 61 bomb is 50 kilotons, which is more than twice as much as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The report of the National Nuclear Security Administration also says that modernization of other more powerful bombs is next in line. After the b 61 dash 12 bomb, an NSA will move on to production of the b 61 dash 13 bomb. Its power is 360 kilotons, which will be a significant step forward compared to the 50 kiloton b 61 dash 12.
The goals of such a large scale modernization are not hidden by the Pentagon itself. Recently, the representative of the US Department of Defense Strategic Command, Rear Admiral Thomas Buchanan, stated that The United States considers it acceptable to exchange nuclear strikes with any country if the Americans can retain some of their weapons of mass destruction to further deter a potential adversary. Deterrence remains the cornerstone of our national defense. Strategic competition between great powers challenges our defense. Buchanan's revelations caused shock in the expert community.
In essence, Buchanan said that The United States is ready to participate in a nuclear war against the Russians and to exchange nuclear strikes with them. This is an analytical review called US nuclear potential, a new arms race. It was prepared by experts from the ROS Congress Foundation. The authors of this review analyzed all the data and came to the conclusion that the pace of nuclear weapons modernization in The United States is accelerating. In 2023 alone, the Pentagon received more than 200 upgraded nuclear weapons, the largest delivery since the end of the Cold War.
The United States has more than 67,000 employees working on its massive nuclear weapons modernization program. Their number has increased by more than 70%. In December 2024, senior Pentagon official Grand Schneider, deputy director of the Joint Staff for Strategic Stability, specified that the modernization of nuclear weapons in The United States will take five years. This is necessary so that we are ready for the challenges of the twenty thirties. We must modernize our nuclear forces, command and control systems, and infrastructure.
In November 2024, this nuclear weapon strategy, known as the four ninety one report, was presented. These are its main theses. The third item deserves special attention. It talks about managing escalation during nuclear strikes. Well, it seems to be nonsense.
How can you manage Armageddon? And it means the following. Previously, it was believed that a nuclear war would be the end of all humanity and this is what excluded a clash between The United States and The USSR and later Russia. But now the Americans seriously consider a nuclear war acceptable. The first thing that comes to mind is that this is madness.
Robert O'Brien, The US national security adviser during Donald Trump's first presidential term explained in his article for the authoritative foreign affairs magazine that the main task of The United States is to create not only modernized b 61 dash twelve and thirteen thermonuclear bombs, but also to produce new land based intercontinental ballistic missiles, the most powerful part of the nuclear triad. The fact is that the Americans hoping for victory in the Cold War did not modernize their nuclear component for a long time, especially regarding ground based nuclear forces. These are the Minuteman missiles of the nineteen sixties. Now they need further modernization since some missiles did not even take off during training launches. In December 2020, Northrop Grumman received an order from the Pentagon to develop a new generation GBSD intercontinental missile.
The first of them are planned to be deployed in 2029. In order to finance this project, the Pentagon decided not to even extend the service life of the Minuteman. Three missiles, its only ground based intercontinental ballistic missile. Little is known about the new missile. It is expected that it will be able to carry both single warhead and multiple warheads.
This missile is a promising complex that is intended to replace the Minuteman three missiles. That is, in terms of dimensions, it is approximately the same, but overall, it carries a more serious warhead and most importantly, it is much faster. Thus, Washington continues the rivalry with Moscow, which began in the middle of the twentieth century. That time, the main means of delivering nuclear weapons of The United States were strategic bombers, b 29 Superfortress. These are the same bombers from which the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
But in the early nineteen fifties, it became clear that in the event of a war with The Soviet Union, the b 29 would become an easy target for the newest Soviet jet fighters, MiG 15, and the world's first operational strategic multichannel air defense missile systems with vertically launched missiles, the legendary c 25. In this regard, The USSR achieved such success that already in the nineteen fifties, The USSR had such systems that shot down aircraft very easily. The West had not yet had such systems. The strategic bomber was no longer a reliable means of delivering nuclear weapons. The solution was an intercontinental ballistic missile.
The order to develop the first such Atlas model was received by the American company Conveyor in 1950. In 1955, an assignment was issued to design the Titan, one missile, a backup in case the Atlas ballistic missile project failed. However, the first successful tests in the world were not of these missiles at all, but of the legendary Soviet r seven missile designed by Sergei Korolev. Its launch took place in August 1957. Based on the R seven missile, a whole family of medium class launch vehicles was created which made a significant contribution to human space exploration.
In October of the same year, this made it possible to launch the first artificial satellite in history into orbit. And four years later, Yuri Gagarin made his first flight into space on such a rocket. Earth, I am an astronaut. Everything is working fine. Everything is working fine.
I continue the flight. In this case, the Americans found themselves in the role of catch up in this direction. The Americans began to design new ballistic missiles at an accelerated pace. This is how the Minuteman family of missiles appeared. Their first successful launch took place in February 1961.
The Minuteman three missile is still in service with The United States. It has an impressive flight range of up to 13,000 kilometers. Nevertheless, according to experts, the Minuteman three missile is long outdated. The newest missile of this series is almost half a century old. Again, we have moved ahead.
Now we already have the Sarmat intercontinental missile with a range of up to 18,000 kilometers. In addition, we have YARS missiles, which carry decoys. We also have the Avangard hypersonic block. This is a masterpiece of our rocket and space industry. According to experts, the American new generation GBSD intercontinental missiles will try to reach the performance of the Russian Tsarmat missile.
However, The United States should hardly count on parity, at least not in the coming years. New Russian missiles are already on combat duty, and new American missiles are still being developed.
reSee.it AI Summary
On December 31, 1999, I delivered my resignation speech, stepping down as Russia's first president and transferring power to Vladimir Putin. In this emotional farewell, I reflected on the challenges of our post-Soviet journey, sought forgiveness for unmet expectations, and expressed hope for a new generation of leaders. My address combined vulnerability with determination, paving the way for Putin's ascent while highlighting my efforts to move away from totalitarianism and my faith in the Russian people's wisdom.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Yeltsin’s Last Message to Russia Before Transferring Power to Putin (1999) Boris Yeltsin’s historic resignation speech on December 31, 1999, in which he unexpectedly stepped down as Russia’s first president and handed power to Vladimir Putin. Delivered on the eve of the new millennium, Yeltsin’s emotional farewell acknowledges the struggles of Russia’s post-Soviet transformation, asks forgiveness for unfulfilled hopes, and expresses confidence in a new generation of leaders. The address—marked by both vulnerability and resolve—set the stage for Putin’s rise while framing Yeltsin’s legacy as a leader who, despite flaws, sought to break from totalitarianism and trusted the Russian people’s wisdom.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dear fellow Russians, I am addressing you for the last time as President of Russia. I have made the decision to resign today, on the last day of the outgoing century. I am stepping down before my term expires because Russia must enter the new millennium with new politicians.
Seeing the hope in the Duma elections for a new generation, I realized I have accomplished the most important task of my life: Russia will never return to the past. I must not stand in the way of this natural course of history.
I ask for your forgiveness for the fact that many of our shared dreams did not come true. The pain of each of you echoed as pain in me. I am leaving because a new generation is taking my place.
Upon resigning, I have signed a decree transferring the duties of the president of Russia to the chairman of the government, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Presidential elections will be held in three months. Be happy. You deserve happiness and peace. Happy New Year. Happy New Century.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Dear fellow Russians. Very little time remains until the magical date in our history. The year February is approaching. A new century. A new millennium.
We have all imagined this date in relation to ourselves, estimating first as children, then as adults. How old we would be in the year February, how old our mothers would be, and how old our children would be. Once, it seemed that this extraordinary New Year was so far away. And now, this day has arrived. Dear friends, my dear ones, Today, I am addressing you with a New Year's greeting for the last time.
But that is not all. Today, I am addressing you as the president of Russia for the last time. I have made a decision. I pondered it long and painfully. Today, on the last day of the outgoing century, I am resigning.
I have heard many times Yeltsin will cling to power by any means. He will not give it up to anyone. That is a lie. The issue is different. I have always said that I would not deviate from the constitution by even a step, that the Duma elections must take place within the constitutional time frame.
And so it happened. I also wanted the presidential elections to take place on time in June 2000. This was very important for Russia. We are setting the most important precedent of a civilized, voluntary transfer of power from one president of Russia to another newly elected one. And yet, I have made a different decision.
I am stepping down, leaving before my term expires. I understood that I must do this. Russia must enter the new millennium with new politicians, with new faces, with new intelligent, strong, energetic people. And we, those who have held power for many years, we must leave. Seeing with what hope and faith people voted in the Douma elections for a new generation of politicians, I realized I have accomplished the most important task of my life.
Russia will never return to the past. Russia will now always move only forward. And I must not stand in the way of this natural course of history. Should I cling to power for another six months? When the country has a strong man worthy of being president, with whom almost every Russian today associates their hopes for the future.
Why should I hinder him? Why wait another six months? No. That is not like me. Not in my character.
Today, on this extraordinarily important day for me, I want to say a little more personal words than I usually do. I want to ask for your forgiveness, for the fact that many of our shared dreams did not come true. And what seemed simple to us turned out to be excruciatingly difficult. I ask forgiveness for not fulfilling some of the hopes of those people. Who believed that we could leap in one bound, in one swift motion.
From the gray, stagnant, totalitarian past into a bright, prosperous, civilized future. I, too, believed in this. It seemed that with one decisive push, we would overcome everything. It did not work out in one leap. In some ways, I was too naive.
In others, the problems turned out to be too complex. We pushed forward through mistakes, through failures. Many people endured upheaval during this difficult time. But I want you to know: I have never said this before. But today, it is important for me to tell you.
The pain of each of you echoed as pain in me, in my heart. Sleepless nights, tormenting thoughts. What must be done so that people could live even a little, even slightly easier, and better. I had no more important task. I am leaving.
I have done all I could. And not because of health, but because of the totality of all problems. A new generation is taking my place. A generation of those who can do more and do better. In accordance with the constitution, upon resigning, I have signed a decree transferring the duties of the president of Russia to the chairman of the government, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
For three months, in accordance with the constitution, he will serve as head of state. And in three months, also in accordance with the constitution of Russia, Presidential Elections will be held. I have always believed in the remarkable wisdom of the Russian people. That is why I have no doubt about the choice you will make at the March 2000. As I say goodbye, I want to tell each of you: Be happy.
You deserve happiness. You deserve happiness and peace. Happy New Year. Happy New Century, my dear ones.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
This will be Donald Trump's failure! If Trump wants to succeed, he must be tough! If Germany transfers missiles to Ukraine, this will be its direct participation in the war between Ukraine and Russia. https://t.co/F1zHxTOYIa
Video Transcript AI Summary
Russia and the U.S. are politically aligned, confronting "brown heirs of Hitler's Germany" in Europe. The speaker suggests the U.S. send an official representative to Moscow's Victory Day parade, and proposes that if Europe continues to "humiliate" Trump, he should either bless Russia's "special military operation" or pressure Europe to unblock $100 billion of frozen Russian assets as an initial settlement.
The speaker suggests using part of the money to purchase Boeing airliners. They also propose restoring direct flights between Moscow and Washington, and returning seized Russian diplomatic property. The speaker claims Zelenskyy opposes Trump's administration and that Ursula von der Leyen is the "new leader of militarism in Europe," hatching plans to rearm Europe.
The speaker references Maria Zakharova's statement that Germany providing long-range missiles to Ukraine would be direct participation in the war. The speaker believes Trump will be blamed if the Ukrainian direction is unsuccessful and must be tough in implementing his goals. The speaker believes Trump is saving Ukraine, referencing a closed session of the Verkhovna Rada where the head of Ukrainian intelligence said Ukraine faces serious threats if there is no negotiation process by the summer. Trump stated that the U.S. will no longer provide military support to Ukraine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Look at this historical paradox. Eighty years have passed since the end of the Great Patriotic War. And Russia and The United States find themselves on the same side of the barricades again, at least for now on the political level. Europe. Brown Europe.
Which is actually continuing the work of the disappeared third Reich. We, together with The United States, are now confronting this not even European bureaucracy, but the brown heirs of Hitler's Germany in our common great past. This was the meeting on the Elba. I thought, why not make such an effective move for the 40 president of The United States Of America? Well, let him not come to Moscow for the victory parade himself, but at least let him send his official representative to this parade.
Pete Heksef, the US secretary of defense, a combat officer, by the way, who voluntarily went as a platoon commander to Iraq. He was also in Afghanistan. He is a man from the provinces. He could have worthily passed on this baton of our common great past in the anti Hitler coalition to The United States Of America at the victory parade in Moscow on May 9. If today The United States Of America is really already openly saying that Europe is incapable of reaching an agreement, well, you know, then I will say it again in the order of such a prediction.
If Europe is throwing and humiliating Trump, well, then let the forty seventh president of The United States, washing his hands of it, give Russia consent to continue a special military operation. Let him officially bless Russia for this. Or if political expediency does not yet allow such a bold political step, let Trump then put pressure on Europe so that within the framework of peaceful regulation, one of the points. In addition to recognizing the new borders of Russia in accordance with the constitution of our country, so that Europe would agree to unblock some of the unfrozen Russian assets. Well, for example, in Europe, a little over $300,000,000,000 are frozen.
Let Europe return $100,000,000,000 to Russia within the first tranche of the settlement, including this problem. And we could, for example, spend part of this money on purchasing new Boeing airliners while simultaneously developing our own competencies in the civil passenger air fleet. I would like to remind you that within the framework of the trade and economic alliance between Beijing and Brussels, One of the tasks that the European bureaucracy will solve is to undermine the capabilities of The United States in the field of civil aircraft manufacturing. From the point of view of competition, Airbus, a European consortium for the production of well known brands of aircraft in the international aviation market. In this case, I think that it will be entirely in the interest of Donald Trump and his administration.
In order to at least restore direct flights between Moscow and Washington, Moscow and New York, to fully operate our diplomatic missions, including the return of Russian diplomatic property That was seized first by Obama and then by Biden. And finally, within the framework of such trade and economic pragmatism to improve both political and trade and economic relations between The United States Of America and Russia, It seems to me that in any case, today, within the framework of expert diplomacy, we have the right to formulate such initiatives and offer them for discussion. I will repeat once again. That Zelenskyy, in his unwillingness to fulfill the obligations that Kyiv took on not to strike Russia's energy infrastructure. Although Russia fully and scrupulously fulfills its obligations, Zelensky still relies on the position of the European Union in opposing Trump and his administration.
Ursula von der Leyen is today the new leader of militarism in Europe. She is the new leader of militarism in Europe, which today is really hatching plans to rearm Europe and prepare for a new war. In this regard, I would like to draw attention once again to the fact that even Boris Pistorius, with all his dislike for Russia, is talking about the risk of transferring long range air launched cruise missiles Taurus into the hands of the Ukrainian army. While the potential candidate and, obviously, the new German chancellor, Mers, openly proclaims that he will do this, thereby pushing Germany towards a new military conflict with Russia. I would like to draw attention to the statement made by Maria Zakharova, how Russia will react to this.
This will be direct participation of Germany in the war between Ukraine and Russia. Please, Spirit and Pavlovich. You know, first, perhaps, it should be said that Zelensky will soon reach the mice and his sanctions policy. And then I thought that where there are cats, you will not find mice. We will consider that this is already the bottom.
Now regarding the blackmail of the Americans who say that if there is no progress in the coming weeks, they will withdraw from the negotiations on Ukraine. Are you serious? Will they walk out of the negotiations? I remembered a good comedy called Gentleman of Fortune. You remember the scene at the stadium when one says to the other, he had a year in prison.
He will get three for escaping and five years for robbing a kindergarten. Let him go. I will just remind you that the midterm elections will not be in Russia or Ukraine. The midterm elections are not in the distant future, but in November of next year. And what do you think?
If Trump is unsuccessful in the Ukrainian direction, will the Democrats try to convert this into their votes? Well, of course, they will try. It will be his failure. It will be Trump's failure. He stated this publicly during the election campaign.
After the elections, he also stated that he wants to succeed. And if he wants to succeed, then he must be tough in implementing the goals and objectives that he has set for himself. He set the task of resolving the conflict? Here you go. He has more than enough tools to influence both the Europeans and Zelensky.
For us, this meeting, in Paris and the upcoming meeting in London, is extremely important in terms of understanding the influence of The United States on its allies and on the British and on the French and on the Ukrainians. However, I don't know how Trump is going to influence Ukraine if he doesn't have a single person inside Ukraine who would represent his interests, including the US Ambassador. There is no one there at all. It's a desert. How he's going to influence?
Frankly, I don't know. And the most important question, who is Trump saving in Paris? Well, I'm absolutely sure that Trump wants to save face, and he is saving Ukraine. It's just that Ukraine doesn't want to admit it, and Zelensky is still drawing some red lines there. But in fact, Trump is saving Ukraine, and this is not my idle speculation.
I will just remind those who have forgotten. On January twenty seventh of this year, there was a closed session of the Verkhovna Rada in Ukraine at which the head of Ukrainian intelligence, Budinov, spoke. And he said that if there is no serious negotiation process by the summer of this year, then Ukraine faces serious threats. You remember, there was a scandal about journalists somehow getting hold of classified information. It wasn't me who said this, and it wasn't you.
It was the head of Ukrainian intelligence. He probably has this information. Right? And they probably understood back then what this war was really leading to and what the consequences for Ukraine might be. So all these negotiations are exclusively in the interest of Ukraine.
And the Europeans are simply trying to present this as a concession that they are making to Russia. In fact, Russia made the main concession by recognizing the Europeans as mediators in these negotiations and not as participants in this war. We will be back. Breaking news from Washington. We have a very good chance of getting a Russian Ukrainian agreement, Trump just said.
And also, quoting Trump. The United States will no longer provide military support to Ukraine.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Welcome to the Ministry of Truth It's like we're in a satirical movie Jen Psaki On Nina Jankowicz "She's an expert on online disinformation." "This is a person with extensive qualifications." https://t.co/goJ23bEyfn https://t.co/bGSSs8Bt0z
Video Transcript AI Summary
Information laundering occurs when lies are made to sound credible by being stated in Congress or a mainstream outlet. Examples of information laundering include Rudy Giuliani sharing bad intel from Ukraine and TikTok influencers claiming COVID can cause pain. Disinformation should not be supported with wallets, voices, or votes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: She's an expert on online disinformation.
Speaker 1: Information laundering is really quite ferocious. It's when a hopster takes some lies and makes them sound precocious by saying them in congress or a mainstream outlet. Disinformation's origins are slightly less atrocious.
Speaker 0: It's how you hide a little idled lie. It's how you hide a little idled lie. It's how you hide a little idled lie when
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani shared bad intel from Ukraine or when TikTok influencers say COVID can cause pain. They're laundering disinth for when we really should take note and not support their lives with our wallet, voice, or vote. Oh.
Speaker 0: But this is a person with extensive qualifications.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
KJP Fails the Lie Detector Tests After a 2021 Jen Psaki Video Proves Her Wrong KJP, Dec 2022: "So it's up to private companies to make these types of decisions. We were not involved. I can say that we were not involved." Jen Psaki, July 2021: "We are in regular touch ... ..."⤵️ https://t.co/CXkzCessx4
Video Transcript AI Summary
The White House Press Secretary was asked about Jim Baker's firing from Twitter and whether the Biden administration was in contact with him regarding moderation decisions or transparency efforts. The response was that these decisions are up to private companies and the administration was not involved.
Another question concerned requests for tech companies to be more aggressive in releasing misinformation and whether the administration has been in touch with any of these companies. The response was that the administration is in regular touch with social media platforms through senior staff and the COVID-19 team. Actions the federal government has taken include increased disinformation research and tracking within the surgeon general's office and flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Twitter, Elon Musk, this week fired, the former FBI general counsel Jim Baker, who was serving as a top Twitter lawyer. Musk alleges that he may have been involved with, countermanding his attempts at transparency. And I was wondering if anyone in the Biden administration was in touch with Baker either regarding moderation decisions that critics call political censorship or regarding, his transparency efforts recently.
Speaker 1: So it's up to private companies, to make these types of decisions. We were not involved. I can say that. We were not involved.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Jen. Can you talk a little bit more about this, request for tech companies to be more aggressive in releasing misinformation? Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies, and are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation? Because we've seen from the start, there's not a lot of action on some of these platforms.
Speaker 3: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch, with these social media platforms, and those, engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID nineteen team. Given as doctor Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation specifically on the pandemic. In terms of actions, Alex, that, we have taken or we're working to take, I should say, from the federal government, we've increased, disinformation research and tracking, within the surgeon general's office. We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook, that spread disinformation.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Every American should watch this! The very real possibility that country could go bankrupt. https://t.co/gN1n0RWpEu
Video Transcript AI Summary
Doge's goal is to cut the federal deficit by $1 trillion by reducing waste and fraud, aiming for a 15% reduction in federal spending without affecting critical services. They claim to routinely find wastes of a billion dollars or more, citing a $1 billion survey example. Doge aims to cut $4 billion a day in waste and fraud.
A key project involves digitizing the government retirement process, currently a paper-based system housed in a mine with 400 million documents. The goal is to reduce processing time from months to days. Doge is also addressing fraudulent Social Security claims, including instances of benefits being stolen and payments made to deceased individuals. They aim to ensure legitimate recipients receive more benefits, not less.
Doge is working to modernize government IT systems, including those at NIH, where there are 27 different CIOs and 700 IT systems that don't communicate. They are also addressing duplicative functions and overstaffing across various agencies, such as the IRS. The Treasury is implementing stricter financial controls to prevent fraud and improper payments, which amount to hundreds of billions of dollars annually. They are reviewing contracts and grants, citing examples of wasteful spending, such as a customer service survey contract.
Elon Musk addressed violence against Tesla dealerships, attributing it to propaganda from the far left. He also defended his criticism of Senator Mark Kelly's stance on Ukraine, stating that officials should prioritize the interests of the United States.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thanks for having us and doing this. I know there's a lot of interest in this. You know, first, let me start with you, Elon. What are the what are the budgetary savings goals, and and how much do you think you've achieved so far?
Speaker 1: Our our goal is to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars. So, from a nominal deficit of 2,000,000,000,000, to try to cut the deficit in half to 1,000,000,000,000, or looked at it in total federal spending to drop the federal spending from 7,000,000,000,000 to 6,000,000,000,000. We wanna reduce the spending by eliminating waste and fraud, reduce the spending by fifth 15%, which seems really quite achievable. The government is not not efficient, and there's a lot of lot of waste and fraud. So we feel confident that a 15% reduction can can be done without affecting any of of the critical government services.
Speaker 0: I'm gonna talk to all
Speaker 1: the making it better.
Speaker 0: And talk to all the guys here about the specifics. But for you, what's the most astonishing thing you've found out in this process?
Speaker 1: The sheer amount of waste and fraud in the government. It is astonishing. It's mind blowing. Just we routinely encounter wastes of a billion dollars or more casually. You know, for example, like the the simple the simple survey that was literally 10 question survey that you could do with SurveyMonkey cost about $10,000 was the government was being charged almost a billion dollars for that.
For just the survey? A billion dollars for for a simple online survey. Do you like the national park? And then there appeared to be no feedback loop for what would be done with that survey. So the survey would just go to nothing.
It was like a thing.
Speaker 0: You technically are a special government employee, and you're supposed to be a hundred and thirty days. Are you going to continue past that, or do you think that's the what you're gonna do? Or Well, I
Speaker 1: I think we will have accomplished most of the work required to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars within that time frame.
Speaker 0: So in that time frame, a hundred
Speaker 1: and
Speaker 0: thirty And and the process is a report at some point, a hundred days? Or
Speaker 1: Not really a report. We we are cutting the waste and fraud in real time. So every day like that passes, our goal is to reduce the the waste and fraud by $4,000,000,000 a day, every day, seven days a week. And so far, we are succeeding.
Speaker 0: And we're gonna talk of the specifics, but there there obviously are Doge critics who are reading all kinds of stuff. Obviously, lawmakers on the other side of the aisle are attacking you. And he they characterize the approach as this, fire, ready, and then aim. And how do you approach that? How do you respond to that?
Speaker 1: Well, I I do agree that we actually wanna be careful in the cuts. So we want to measure twice, if not thrice, and cut once. And actually, is that is our approach. They may characterize it as shooting from the hip, but it is anything but that, which is not to say that we make we don't make mistakes. If we were to approach this with the standard of making no mistakes at all, that would be like saying someone in baseball has got to bat a thousand.
That's impossible. So when we do make mistakes, we correct them quickly, and we we move on.
Speaker 0: Some people say this shouldn't take a rocket scientist. Steve Davis, you are a rocket scientist. Used to be. Yeah. Now, essentially, you're the chief operating officer of Doge, day to day operations.
Fair to say?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Part part of the Doge team.
Speaker 0: What so how did you end up here? What's the biggest challenge you see?
Speaker 2: The reason I'm here, which is probably for many, is that I think the goal is incredibly inspiring. I think most of the taxpayers in the country would agree that in order to have the the country going bankrupt would be a very bad thing, and therefore the country going not bankrupt is a good thing that all of us are willing to kind of put our lives on hold in order to do. I think the thing that's special right now is we actually believe there's a chance to succeed, that there's an administration that's supportive and great cabinet and just a great group that will actually make success a possible outcome. And I think that's given the inspiring mission and given the, non zero chance of success, it it was worth doing.
Speaker 1: I like to sort of reemphasize that point. The success of those is only possible with president Trump and with the outstanding cabinet that he selected. It would be impossible without the support of the president and the cabinet.
Speaker 0: But you're finding the money. I mean, it's big numbers. Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Like Jan said, the minimum impulse bit is often a billion dollars. So, for example, the $830,000,000, which was the online survey, that's an enormous amount of money. That wouldn't have been found if the Doge team wasn't working with it, in that case, the Department of Interior. But then taking it one step further, Doge then publish publishes these things on our website for maximum transparency.
So now the general public it would have been impossible for the general public to have seen that. Now anyone can just log in to doge.gov anytime and see these payments as they're not yet in real time. They're close, but they'll probably be in real time within the next few weeks.
Speaker 0: But the process, it still involves congress. Right? At some level?
Speaker 1: We're trying to keep congress as informed as possible, but it it it the law does say that money needs to be spent correctly. It should not be spent fraudulently or wastefully. It's not contrary to congress to avoid waste and fraud. It is consistent with the law and consistent with congress, and we've seen actually great support at least from the Republican side of the of the house and occasionally some Democrats too. You know, it's nice to see people cross the aisle once in a while.
But usually when they attack those, they never attack any of the specifics. So they'll they'll say what we're doing is somehow unconstitutional or legal or whatever. We're like, well, which line of the cost savings do you disagree with? And they can't point to any. And we list them all on on doge.gov and and the Doge handle on x.
And you'll see just outrageous things, one outrageous thing after another.
Speaker 0: Joe Gabbian, besides Elon, you're one of several billionaires here, cofounder of Airbnb, and you wanted to help out.
Speaker 3: I bumped into Anthony Dewan probably back in February, and they told me something about a a mine that was dealt with retirement. And they said that he needs somebody to help out to fix retirement in the government. I I love the challenge, so I jumped on board. And it turns out there is actually a mine in Pennsylvania that houses every paper document for the retirement process in the government. Now picture this.
This this giant cave has 22,000 filing cabinets stacked 10 high to house 400,000,000 pieces of paper. It's a process that started in the nineteen fifties and largely hasn't changed in the last seventy years. And so as he dug into it, we found retirement cases that had so much paper, they had to fit it on a shipping pallet. So the process takes many months, and we're gonna make it just many days.
Speaker 0: Will it be digitized or how
Speaker 3: Absolutely. So this will be an online digital process that will take just a few days at most. And I really think, you know, it's an injustice to civil servants who are subjected to these processes that are older than the age of half the people watching your show tonight. So we really believe that the government can have an Apple Store like experience, beautifully designed, great, easier experience, modern systems.
Speaker 0: Because right now, it's by hand.
Speaker 1: Yes. But the the retirement process is all by paper, literally with people carrying paper and manila envelopes in into this gigantic mine.
Speaker 0: So they can't retire more than a certain number every month?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 4: About about 8,000 a month.
Speaker 1: That that that's how we the reason we discovered it was we were saying like, well, let's encourage voluntary retire retirement. That's the most you could be that could they could do is 8,000 a month. And and even don't know what circumstances it can take six to nine months just to just to have your time and paperwork processed, and they often get the calculations wrong. So we're like, well, why would it take so long to retire? And they're like, well, because of the mind.
They're like, what do you mean a mind? What's a mind got to do with retiring? And that's where we discovered that the retirement stuff is done by still done by paper in a process that looks identical to what occurred in the nineteen fifties. Like, we took a snapshot of the mine when it first started in the fifties to today, it looks the same.
Speaker 0: It's amazing. So how long do you think it'll take take to turn over?
Speaker 3: We're working as fast as we can. Probably next couple of months, we'll have this this overhauled. And, you know, I really think, again, like, why are we subjecting our federal workers to processes that they actually have to go through a training just to retire from the government? There's a whole training program that people have to go through in order to retire. I I think we can do better for them.
Speaker 0: Aram Mogadasi, a Doge engineer. Yeah. You go into these places, one of the more than a dozen engineers, first people to go into the agencies and view the computer datasets. Tell me what you're finding. And for people who don't understand how that process works, explain it for them.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I'll say the first thing that got me really excited about Doge was learning, basically, the state of government computers. By some estimates, government IT costs about a hundred billion dollars, and it's funding systems that are over 50 years old in the case of something like Social Security or the IRS. So really critical systems are are old. They cost a lot of money to maintain, and, they could be the the efforts to improve them are often very delayed.
So I I thought I'm a software engineer, that that maybe can make a difference here, and that's that's really what inspired me at a high level.
Speaker 0: There's a lot of history about Social Security and a lot of words about it from here's what Democrats have been saying about
Speaker 2: It's absurd that Elon Musk is trying to eliminate billions of dollars from Social Security.
Speaker 5: Elon Musk and president Trump have set their sights on cutting Social Security.
Speaker 0: Their goal is clear, destroy Social Security from within. You're in the building. I mean, you're in the computers. What's happening there? What are you doing?
Speaker 5: Yeah. It doesn't line up with my experience on the ground. And I'll say the two improvements that we're trying to make to Social Security are helping people that legitimately get benefits, protect them from fraud that they experience every day on a routine basis, and also make the experience better. And I'll give you one one example is at Social Security, one of the first things we learned is that they get phone calls every day of people trying to change direct deposit information. So when you want to change your bank account, you can call Social Security.
We learned 40% of the phone calls that they get are from fraudsters.
Speaker 0: Forty percent?
Speaker 5: That's right. Almost half.
Speaker 1: Yes. And and they they steal people's social security is what happens. Is they they call in, they say they claim to be a retiree, then they they and they convince the post the Social Security person on the phone to change the where the where the money is flowing. It it actually goes to some fraudster. This is happening all day every day.
And and then and then somebody doesn't receive their Social Security is because of of all the the forward loopholes in the Social Security system.
Speaker 0: How do you reassure people that what you all are doing is not gonna affect their benefits?
Speaker 1: No. In fact, what what we're doing will help their benefits. Legitimate people, as a result of the work of Doge, will receive more social security, not less. Wanna emphasize that. As a result of the work of Doge, legitimate recipients of social security will receive more money, not less money.
Speaker 0: Alright.
Speaker 1: And and and and let the record show that I said this and the it will be proven out to be true. Let's let's check back on this in the future.
Speaker 0: So as Washington Post, the Social Security website crashed four times in ten days this month because the servers were overloaded, blocking millions of retirees and disabled veterans from logging into their online accounts. Freaked people out. Is it is that gonna change?
Speaker 1: Yes. We're gonna make sure that the website stays online. Yeah. I mean, but is it
Speaker 0: a result of going in there No. Or something you're doing? No.
Speaker 2: The the amount of issues that were the social security system are are enormous. As an example, there are over 15,000,000 people that are 20 that are marked as alive in the Social Security system.
Speaker 0: And that's an accurate figure.
Speaker 1: Yes. Correct.
Speaker 0: 15,000,000. Correct.
Speaker 2: This has been something that's been identified as a problem. Problem. Again, preexisting problems since 02/2008 at least from an IG report. So there's there there were some great people working at the Social Security Administration Social Security Administration that found this 02/2008 and nothing was done. And so 15 to 20,000,000 Social Security numbers that were clearly fraudulent were floating around that can be used only for bad intentions.
There'd be no way to use those for good intentions. And so what one of things the Doge team is doing is carefully and and very methodically looking at those and making sure that any fraudulent ones are eliminated.
Speaker 0: Brett Smith, working at HHS, and obviously another element is Medicare and Medicaid, NIH. What are you finding?
Speaker 6: Yeah. Well, I'd say there's a couple of things we're really committed to in our work at HHS. Number one, making sure we continue to have the best biomedical research in the world. And number two, making sure which president Trump has said over and over again that we 100% protect Medicare and Medicaid. But there's a lot of opportunity.
So if I take NIH as an example, today, if you're an NIH researcher and you get a hundred dollar grant at your university, today, you get to spend 60 of that and your university spends 40 of that. The policy that we're proposing to make is that you get to spend 85 of that and your university spends 15. So that's more money going directly to the scientists who are discovering new cures. Another example at NIH is today they have 27 different centers. They got created over time by congress, and they're typically by disease state or body system.
There's 700 different IT systems today at NIH.
Speaker 0: Seven hundred different IT systems.
Speaker 1: IT software systems. They don't communicate.
Speaker 6: They can't speak to each other.
Speaker 0: They say they don't talk to one.
Speaker 6: They have 27 different CIOs. And so when you think about making great medical discoveries, you have to connect the data.
Speaker 1: Time out.
Speaker 0: Time out. Said 27 different chief information officers?
Speaker 6: Correct. Correct.
Speaker 1: And most of them are nontechnical. So there's a lot there. So what saying?
Speaker 0: There's a
Speaker 6: lot of opportunity. It will make science better, not worse.
Speaker 1: And when I say that our job is tech support, I really mean it. Yeah. We have to fix the computers. If the computers can't talk to each other, you can't get research done. If the computers can't go stay online, people won't receive their social security.
So what we have here are a bunch of failing computer systems that are preventing people from receiving their benefits, that are preventing people from preventing research from happening, that are extremely vulnerable to fraud, and we're fixing it.
Speaker 0: And does that include AI? Does that include kind of changing the system overall? That's I guess what people are afraid of is they don't know Yeah. What this is all looking like, and is it gonna affect me in the long term?
Speaker 1: It's gonna affect them. It's gonna affect people very positively. So the changes that we're doing here will ensure the solvency of the American government of the American of The United States Of America. This is what this is what we're trying to do is ensure that people do receive their benefits in the future. And you can only receive your benefits if the if the if the country is operating in a in a healthy and competent way.
Speaker 0: Up next, how the Doge team plans to streamline some federal jobs and agencies. And later, Elon Musk's answers some of your questions that you asked via x. Anthony Armstrong, Doge, office of personnel management, Morgan Stanley banker, m and a guy. Yep. You know money, and this is a lot of money sloshing around.
Speaker 4: There's a lot of money sloshing around. It's a lot of money sloshing out the door. And if you look at the federal government and the way the workforce works, it's really a one way ratchet over decades.
Speaker 2: It's only going up.
Speaker 4: It's only going up. You never you never take it away. So that leaves you with duplicative functions. It leaves you with overstaffing, and it leaves you with functions in the wrong places. So a couple of examples, duplicative functions.
Brad mentioned 27 CIOs. If you had kept going with Brad, he probably he would talk about the communications office. I think you've got forty forty distinct communications offices in HHS. Right? Yeah.
40? Yeah. And that's not unusual by the way, multiple offices like So
Speaker 1: it's not like anyone healthy.
Speaker 4: This is not about the employees there. There's many, many hardworking, well meaning people who took these jobs. These jobs were out there. They applied for them. They took them.
They're doing what's there. It's just that they're duplicating the effort of 40 offices. So you've got that. You've got over staffing. A good example of over staffing would be the IRS has got 1,400 people who are dedicated to provisioning laptops and and cell phones.
So if you join the IRS, you get a laptop and a cell phone, you're provisioned. So if each of those IRS officers or employees provisioned two employees per day, you could provision the entire IRS in a little more than a month. So 12 times a year,
Speaker 1: you can re provision Why would you have 1,400 people whose only job it is to give out a laptop and a phone?
Speaker 4: Right. The whole IRS could be handled once a month. So that doesn't doesn't make any sense. And president Trump's been very clear. It's scalpel not hatchet, and that's the way it's it's getting done.
And then once those decisions are made, there's a very heavy focus on being generous, being caring, being compassionate, and treating everyone with dignity and respect. And and if you look at how people have started to leave the government, it is largely through voluntary means. There's voluntary early retirement. There's voluntary separation payments. We put in place deferred resignation, the eight month severance program.
So there's a very heavy bias towards programs that are long dated, that are generous, that allow people to exit and go and get a new job in the private sector. And you've you've heard a lot of a lot of news about rifts about people getting fired. At at this moment in time, less than point one five, not 1.5, less than point one five of the federal workforce has actually been given a riff notice.
Speaker 0: So So they've selected if they're a leader.
Speaker 1: It it is Basically, almost no one's gotten fired. That's what we're saying.
Speaker 0: Tom Krausz, working at treasury, you are having access to the payment system, oversees all the outgoing payments. Essentially, payments were going places we didn't know where they were going. Right?
Speaker 7: Yeah. Unfortunately, that's the case, Brett. You know, as an ex CFO of a big public tech company, really what we're doing is we're applying public company standards to the federal government. And it is alarming how the financial operations and financial management is set up today. There is actually really only one bank account that's used to disperse all monies that go out of the federal government.
Speaker 0: Time out. One bank account. It's a big one.
Speaker 1: It's a
Speaker 0: big one. It's a big one.
Speaker 7: It's a big one. A couple weeks ago, had $800,000,000,000 in it, but it's the the treasury general account. So when you hear, you know, some of my colleagues here, what they're talking about in terms of the fraud, you have to ask, well, why is this allowed to happen at a financial level? Well, it's actually quite simple but alarming. The treasury up until now, and thanks to president Trump, we're fixing this.
In fact, there's an executive order that he just signed the other day, which is protecting America's bank account because it really is the taxpayers' money. You know, one, we're changing the culture. The culture has been not a lot of caring and not a lot of commitment to doing what's right relative to financial operations. There's a $500,000,000,000 of fraud every year. There's hundreds of billion dollars of improper payments, and we can't pass an audit.
The the consolidated financial report is produced by treasury, and we cannot pass it on. We have material weaknesses. What that means is that if I was a public company CFO, I would effectively be removed. I couldn't file financial statements. I couldn't issue securities.
Can't on. Can't pass it on.
Speaker 1: Right. The the federal government cannot pass an audit. It's impossible. In fact, the the you in order to pass an audit, you need the information that's really passed an audit. You need to have the payment codes.
You need to have the payment explanation, and you need to have a person you can contact to understand why that payment was made. None of those things were mandatory Yeah. Until until just recently, just a few weeks ago. In fact, maybe last week?
Speaker 7: Yeah. We're serving 580 plus agencies. And up until very recently, effectively, they could say make the payment and treasury just sent it out as fast as possible. No verification. And so what we're doing is what any household would do.
But imagine you're a household, you have a bank account, everyone has an ATM card connected to that account, everyone has a checkbook connected to that account. It's not just your children. It's not just your parents. It's your in laws. It's your extended family, and they all can go to the account and disperse funds.
No questions asked. No justification. No verification.
Speaker 0: Up next, the Doge team targets government contracts, and we'll show you what they're finding. Tyler, Hasson, interior department, you're a form former oil company CEO. You're reviewing contracts before they're approved for funding. What what are you finding?
Speaker 8: Well, Elon and Steve kinda stole my thunder a little bit, but I actually found that customer service survey contract. I actually have an example of one right here. I could have done this in high school. And Is that right? I I found it
Speaker 1: It's that bad.
Speaker 8: I found it on the weekends because under the Biden administration, there was no departmental oversight within the Department of Interior whatsoever. None. We are now reviewing every single contract, every single grant. And when things come to my attention that don't make sense, I'm bringing him to secretary Bergam, and he has been fantastic. He's he's a businessman.
He's very supportive of Doge. It's been wonderful to work
Speaker 2: with him.
Speaker 0: Is the battle between government of decades and decades of buildup and business, which you guys are, is that like a train hitting each other? I mean, it it seems like it's pretty disruptive.
Speaker 1: Well, this is a revolution. And I think it it might be the might be the biggest revolution in government since the original revolution. But at the end of the day, America is gonna be in much better shape. America will be solvent. The critical programs that people depend upon will work, and it's gonna be a fantastic future.
And and but are we gonna get a lot of complaints along the way? Absolutely. You know, one the things I learned at PayPal was the you know who complains the loudest and the with the the most amount of fake righteous indignation? The fraudsters. That's it's a tell.
You know what mean? That are crazy. Like, the the $2,000,000,000 to Stacey Abrams NGO that basically doesn't exist and suddenly gets $2,000,000,000 awarded from the federal government. She is why? And there are many such cases like that.
Speaker 0: I think that most people, common sense wise, would say the fraud's gotta end. Yeah. They're concerned about the 94 year old mother who skips a check or somehow doesn't get what she's supposed to get.
Speaker 1: Right. And what we're trying to say is actually that that the 94 year old grandmother is is actually as a result of Joe Doge's work going to get her check. She's not going to be robbed by fraudsters like she's getting robbed today. And the solvency of the of the federal government will ensure that she continues to receive those social security checks, that Medicare continues to work, without which we're all doomed. And the reason we're doing this is because if if we don't do it, America's gonna go insolvent.
We're gonna go bankrupt, and nobody's gonna get anything.
Speaker 0: Why are you guys all doing it? I mean, you can pipe up, but it you don't have to be here. Right? I mean, you don't you don't have to be doing this.
Speaker 7: I have four blessed with four beautiful children, my wife and I. But we have a real fiscal crisis, and and this is not sustainable. And what's worse, back to my children and everyone else's children is we're are burdening them with that debt, it's only gonna grow.
Speaker 0: Steve, there's not a lot of hierarchy here. You guys are kind of all approaching it in different, you know, silos, but, with the same kind of goal. Right? I mean, this is really Silicon Valley private sector colliding with government.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Exactly. And we're headed in a bad path, but the the chance of success exists. And just the one that just is in my head right now, which is a fairly mundane one, but I think is very illustrative is credit cards.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2: There are in the in the federal government around 4,600,000 credit cards for around 2.3 to 2,400,000 employees. This doesn't make sense. Right. And so one of the things all of the teams have have worked on is we've worked for the agencies and said, do you need all of these credit cards? Are they being used?
Can you tell us physically where they are? I hope they're getting frequent flyers. Actually, on a different note, the rewards program the federal government has is actually not very good. That's a whole other It's a negotiation. Right.
Yeah. Exactly. But so far, the teams have worked together, and they've reduced it from 4,600,000.0 to to 4,300,000.0. So we're we're taking it
Speaker 0: easy. Yeah.
Speaker 3: But but,
Speaker 1: clearly, there should not be, you know, more there should be more credit cards than there are people.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Joe, middle level employees, are they seeing a benefit to being empowered by taking out bureaucracy? I mean
Speaker 3: Absolutely. I mean, I think what you're seeing is taking the best of Silicon Valley in the business world and bringing it into the government. We're bringing the best practices and the best methodologies. And, people are inspired, right, especially on the retirement process, which I can speak to. They've been trying to modernize and get off of paper since early two thousands, very unsuccessfully.
Every attempt has gone over budget and been canceled because it hasn't been successful. And so, you know, I showed up and I feel like I'm here because it's an interesting problem. We can use design to solve it and good engineering and really create a better experience for everybody.
Speaker 1: They were we're talking about elementary financial controls that are necessary for any company to function. So, like, if if these can if if if the federal government if if if a commercial company operated the way the federal government does, then it would be go immediately go bankrupt. It would be delisted. The officers would be arrested. And the changes we're putting in place will enable the federal government to pass an audit.
It will enable enable taxpayers to know where the money is going and know that their hard earned tax tax dollars are being spent well. The ways that the government is defrauded is that the computer systems don't talk to each other. So if the computer systems systems don't talk to each other, then it you you can you can exploit that gap, and and fraudsters exploit that exploit that gap, take advantage. If, for example, there were over $300,000,000 of small business administration loans that has been given out to people under the age of 11.
Speaker 2: Well, actually, to add to this, 300,000,000 under the age of 11 and over 300,000,000 to over the age of 120.
Speaker 0: Definitely Small business loans.
Speaker 1: Correct. Yes. The oldest American is 14. So it's safe to say if their age is 15 or above, they're they're fake. Or they should be in the Guinness Guinness Book of World Records.
And we we should not be giving out loans to babies. So the youngest recipient of a small business administration loan is a nine month year old, which is a very very cautious baby we're talking about here. So obviously, was just fraudulent. And what they and and they do terrible things. They actually will see that a a kid's been born.
They will steal that kid's social security number, and then take out a loan, and and leave that kid with a with a bad credit rating. There was literally a baby. The terrible things are being done is what we're saying. And how We're stopping these terrible things.
Speaker 0: And you can stop it?
Speaker 1: I mean Well, we are stopping. Is
Speaker 4: because the the two systems are not talking to each other.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 4: Right? And so you don't know at the small business administration that you're giving a loan to a nine month old, which happened in one case, because you're not cross referencing that with the Social Security Administration data that has birth dates. So that very, very simple fix
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 4: Eliminates tremendous fraud. And and that there are multiple systems across the government where the systems are not speaking with one another. And if you just solve that simple problem, you would solve a huge amount of fraud.
Speaker 1: Are you surprised? Ways that like, one one of the the key tricks that the fraudsters pull is that they will use the fact that someone is marked as live and as as sort of just that that Social Security number is marked as alive in Social Security, and then then get disability and unemployment insurance for a dead person. Because the databases don't talk to each other, all they got was from Social Security is like, is this person alive? Yes. They're not they're not alive.
It's falsely mark person is falsely marked as alive in Social Security, but they didn't but but that was a fraudster can now get unemployment and disability for from a dead person. This is happening all the time at scale.
Speaker 0: Are you surprised at some of the legal efforts and some of the judges that have weighed in? There's about eight or 10 now of these cases that are at least temporary holds. They're being challenged by the DOJ.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 0: Are you surprised by that pushback? Well, it's
Speaker 1: the the DC Circuit is notorious for having a very far left bias. And when you look at the people close to some of these judges, who who who are where are they working? Are they working at these NGOs? Are they getting the the other ones getting this money? Does that seem like system that lacks corruption?
It sounds like corruption to me.
Speaker 0: Last thing. Do you guys all see this as a patriotic duty? I mean, is that really what this is about?
Speaker 1: It's essential. Very
Speaker 8: much. I do. A %. I I was running five businesses in Houston, and I and I left that. I left great people to do this.
And my wonderful wife said, go for it, and here I am. But I I feel like this is me giving back to the country.
Speaker 1: If if we don't do this, we're sunk. The ship unless unless this exercise is successful, the ship of America will sink. That's why we're doing it.
Speaker 0: Well, I really appreciate the time today. And hopefully, it took some of the myth and mystery out of Doge and what's happening behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: We asked on Axe, your platform, for some And here is c Sperling.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: He writes, are they happy with the speed at which they're making changes? Are there any changes they would like to make but haven't yet?
Speaker 1: Well, I I think in the context of the government, we're moving like lightning. In the context of what I'm used to moving, it's slower than I'd like. So what what seems like incredibly fast action by government standards is slower than I'd like to be totally frank. But we are making solid progress. A very sort of thorny problem, a tough problem.
Really, it's kinda like painful homework, is reconciling all of the government databases to eliminate the waste and fraud. These databases don't talk to each other, and that's really, the source of of, that that's the biggest vulnerability for fraud is the is the the fact that these databases don't talk to each other. So we need to reconcile databases. It's a frankly painful homework, but it has to be done and will greatly improve the efficiency of the government systems.
Speaker 0: We didn't talk about any plans to approach cuts at the Pentagon. You're in there.
Speaker 1: You know, the Pentagon has not passed an audit in a very long time. I mean, crazy as it sounds, will lose $2,030,000,000,000 dollars a year, and they don't know where they literally don't know where it went. I mean, senator Collins was telling me about how she gave the navy twelve billion dollars for extra submarines, got zero extra submarines. And then when she held a hearing, said where'd the $12,000,000,000 go? They didn't know.
Speaker 0: Talking to those guys, and you have a a great team from all over the country. You don't have to be here. You don't have to be here. You know, there's now been these many cases of violence and vandalism at Tesla dealerships. How does that affect your employees, your customers?
What does it mean to you? Like, how have you taken that in?
Speaker 1: Well, I think I think a great wrong is being done to the people of Tesla and to our customers. Tesla is a peaceful peaceful company that has made great cars, great products. That's what it's done. It hasn't harmed anyone, and yet people are committing violence. They're firebombing Tesla dealerships.
They're shooting guns into stores. They're threatening people. They're you know, they're issuing death threats against me and and another Tesla personnel. What are they doing this for? Why?
And and the what's happening, it seems to me, is they're being fed propaganda by the far left, and they believe it. It's really unfortunate. The the the real problem is not a lot the people it's it's not like the the the, you know, the the crazy guy that that firebombs a Tesla dealership. It's the people pushing the propaganda that that that caused that guy to do it. Those are the real villains here, and we're gonna go after them.
And the president's made it clear, we're gonna go after them. The ones providing the money, the ones pushing the lies and propaganda, we're going after them.
Speaker 0: And it's been this evolution. I mean, the last administration was going to mandate electric vehicles, and now you see on the far left, some efforts to go after electric vehicles. It's quite something.
Speaker 1: It is ironic. I mean, it seems like the most ironic outcome is the most likely. But
Speaker 2: yeah. I mean Personally, it's
Speaker 1: gotta take a toll. It does. Yeah. It does. I think there's some real evil out there, and we have to overcome it.
Speaker 0: I mean, you have been called a Nazi, a white supremacist, a fascist.
Speaker 1: I mean, they've got this sort of
Speaker 7: the Just a name
Speaker 0: for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, they've they've still got it. They haven't I guess, they need still needs to call me Stalin, Mussolini, you know, whatever, or or whatever. I mean, they've called the president all these things. I think at one point, there was a magazine cover which which said the president was worse than that president Trump was worse than Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin combined.
The president hasn't killed anyone. He hasn't started any wars. In fact, he's he's he's good at stopping wars. So this is obviously they're pushing the these lies. And why do they push these lies?
And and I think that we need to hold people responsible for pushing these lies because those lies almost got the president killed.
Speaker 0: What's something that people wouldn't know about the president? You're pretty close to him now. You spent a lot of time with him. What's something that people wouldn't know?
Speaker 1: I think the president is a good man. I I think he is an honest man, and and I I've yet to see him do anything mean or anything that is wrong, that I would say morally wrong. Not even once.
Speaker 0: You know, a lot is coming your way, but sometimes you say stuff or post stuff that gets attention. You give it out. In other words, Democratic Arizona senator Mark Kelly posted on x about his trip to Ukraine to push for continuing to send US weapons and support there, and you posted that he was a traitor. Why do that?
Speaker 1: Well, I think somebody should be should care about the interests of The United States above the interests of another country. And if they don't, they're a traitor.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But he's a decorated veteran, a former astronaut, a sitting US senator.
Speaker 1: It's that doesn't mean, he's it's okay for him to put the interest of another country above America.
Speaker 0: Obviously, there are some Republicans who think supporting Ukraine is the right thing still, but there is a battle back and forth about how that how do you think it comes to an end?
Speaker 1: Well, I think there will be a negotiated peace. And the thing that we should be concerned about is we should have empathy for the thousands of people that are dying every day in trenches for no movement in the in the lines. So the the borders remain the same for the past two years. Thousands of people have died every every week for nothing. For what?
And I I I take great great offense at those who those who put the appearance of goodness over the reality of it. Those who virtue signal and say, oh, we can't give in to Russia, but have no solution to stopping thousands of of kids dying every day. They just want that to continue forever. Have contempt for such people. I don't wanna make that clear.
Yeah. So you're optimistic. Because they're Voci signaling and their lack of a solution means that kids don't have a father. It means that parents lost a son. For what?
Speaker 0: Nothing. So you're optimistic that the president's plan might work?
Speaker 1: The the president's plan is the only thing that will work.
Speaker 9: Hey, Sean Hannity here. Hey, click here to subscribe to Fox News YouTube page and catch our hottest interviews and most compelling analysis. You will not get it anywhere else.
reSee.it AI Summary
In an interview, I discussed the lack of a clear American plan for the Ukraine conflict, expressing skepticism about the West sending more weapons and the potential for renewed fighting. I emphasized the heavily mined border, making it nearly impossible for anyone to cross. I criticized those spreading misinformation and highlighted that if the US and Russia reach an agreement, Europe could face significant consequences. My comments were in response to Putin's suggestion of a 30-day ceasefire in the ongoing conflict.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
How will Trump force Putin and Ukraine to reach a ceasefire?! - Lukashenko - I see that the Americans do not have a clear plan! Within 30 days the West will send weapons to Ukraine, then we will start fighting again?! - Neither a rooster nor a chicken can get through that border, everything is mined there! - This is not propaganda, this is what the bearers of fake news and idiots say! - If US and Russia come to an agreement, then Europe will be drained into the pipe! Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko gave an interview to a Russian journalist. In particular, Lukashenko commented on Russian President Vladimir Putin's opinion regarding a 30-day truce in the Ukrainian conflict.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Lukashenko discusses a potential 30-day truce in Ukraine, noting Putin's desire to stop the conflict. He raises concerns about Ukraine using the truce to stockpile weapons, questioning how Russia can be prevented from increasing military production during this time. Lukashenko believes the US lacks a clear plan but is "testing the waters," possibly to create an action plan, and suggests that sanctions are threatened if Putin doesn't agree.
Lukashenko claims there's no trickery in the peace efforts but emphasizes the need for verifiable facts. He acknowledges heightened security on the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, despite ongoing cooperation, including prisoner and casualty exchanges. He dismisses claims of an impending war with Europe, stating Russia has no such plans.
Lukashenko warns that if Russia and the US reach an agreement without Europe, Europe will suffer, urging them to negotiate. He suggests the US may replace Zelenskyy. Lukashenko says that he is working with Putin to produce Orshnik missiles and launchers, and they will decide where to place them. He believes the war must end due to exhaustion of resources and acknowledges the tenacity of both Ukrainian and Russian forces.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We
Speaker 1: have such incredible times. Well, really, what can I We live like in a history textbook? The thirty day truce is the main world sensation right now.
Speaker 0: How did
Speaker 1: you understand this? Did we agree or refuse? How did you discuss this with Putin? Well, I don't know. He listened to the American yesterday.
Whether Putin agreed or not, he will tell me now. I will meet with him now. We will have dinner with pleasure, and as usual, we will talk until the night. And among other things, we will discuss this issue. Well, in general, I know his position.
And yesterday, he was great. He even said more than he wanted, including about these thirty days. He opened the question, what and how? And how will it be? He asked himself these rhetorical questions.
And how will the truth be? Thirty days. I know him. His main desire is that all this must be stopped. He is exclusively for peace.
Well, a month long truce is nothing new on the part of the Americans. In principle, it has always been like this. But what is Vladimir Vladimirovich write about? Okay. There is a truce.
We are not shooting. We are not killing. And what will Ukraine do during this time? Yes. The Ukrainians will also ask the question, well, what will the Russians do?
In Russia, it is more difficult to control this. They their military industrial complex will produce tanks, shells, ammunition. Yes. They will not drag it to the front line. Well, they will take it to a warehouse and so on.
Who will forbid them from doing this? Nobody. Question. How can this be controlled by the Ukrainians in the West? Putin asked a question about a truce.
And at this time, a certain amount of weapons and ammunition has accumulated in the city of Rzeso in Poland. The Americans have now lifted all bans on the supply of these weapons. Trump announced this and so on. Are you going to stuff Ukraine with weapons and even transfer mercenaries there for thirty days?
Speaker 0: And then
Speaker 1: we will start fighting again? Then even more people will die, and it is unknown. What will happen?
Speaker 0: Therefore,
Speaker 1: there are many questions. And observing the situation with my experienced and a modest eye, I see that the Americans do not have a clearly defined plan. They do not have it. They are feeling out some issues. They are testing the waters.
Well, let it be so. Let them feel out. But in the end, they wanna draw up some kind of action plan, the Americans. And, in general, they say that if Putin does not agree, then they will introduce some sanctions. Well, where can more sanctions go?
Well, maybe they will do something else? With Zelensky, Trump showed What will happen when they wipe their feet on him in the Oval Office? First of during the war First of all, during war, everyone has problems. Even you have a beautiful ocean, and you don't feel the problems now, but you will feel them in the future. You can't know that.
God, protect you from war. Don't tell us what we will feel. We are trying to solve the problem. There will be not only like this. Well, this is a general discussion, but how Trump will force Putin or Ukraine to go to a truce?
This is a big question. Therefore, there are no specifics. In the trips of high ranking American officials, the special envoy and representatives of The US President indicate that they are testing the waters, coordinating some issues with Ukraine, with Russia. In order to draw up some kind of action plan, it will not be easy. But do you feel a catch, or does this smell of peace?
No. Well, what catch is there? They can't have a catch. I say, they have nothing yet, but it smells of peace. I think that this year we will be able to do something about this war to stop it.
Therefore, I do not think that they are doing this as a trick. No. There is no trick here, but you cannot trust them. Facts on the table. We will look at these specific facts and make a decision so that they do not fool us.
As Putin says, as it was in the past, so that they do not deceive us. They will not be able to deceive us. We have already had enough of all this. You say that there will be peace this year. Today, Ukrainian propaganda showed the most protected border.
Yes. What the most dangerous point is there, Ukrainian Belarusian. They say that Lukashenko is ready to attack. Thank you for telling me. They are strengthening the border to the fullest extent, and they continue to do so now.
I know this, but this is too much. Not even a rooster or a chicken can get through that border. Everything is mined there. Everything is mined and barricaded there. And then, this is not propaganda.
This is said by the bearers of fakes and idiots. Olga, so you know. On this barricaded border, there are windows through, which we cooperate with the Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians, and they are with us. There is an exchange of hundreds of dead. There is an exchange of hundreds of prisoners of war.
There is an exchange of the wounded, those with torn off arms or legs. They bring them here
Speaker 0: to us in Gamel. There
Speaker 1: was an exchange recently, and we take these disabled people to our hospitals. They need to be given the very first aid. It is amazing that they were given qualified assistance in Ukraine. This is also amazing. They didn't leave them to die in the mud with festering wounds.
No. The Ukrainians there, on the spot, provided these wounded Russian prisoners of war with good medical care. So there are normal people there? They're doctors. Normal doctors.
That's why the border there is very heavily barricaded. We know that. It is mined. I didn't understand you about the peaceful trend. You were talking about a peaceful trend.
But look at Europe. Germany and France have officially declared that in five years there will be a big war, and you were talking about a peaceful trend. Listen, maybe they need this? And I will tell you that Putin and the Russian leadership are not planning any war. And there will be no war in five years.
Do you understand? We have had our fill of this example. And even you, Olga, you are a real fighter. Now there is a brutal war going on in the media. Would you support a war against Poland in five years?
No. Why do we need this? Olga, we have no such plans. I once discussed the problem with Putin regarding the Europeans when they started to scare us by saying that they would close the Baltic Sea, and then Russia would not be able to trade through the Baltic Sea. I jokingly said, you know, Vladimir Vladimirovich, we will have to escort our dry cargo ships with military vessels.
We joked. We laughed. That's all. In this regard, and this is quite realistic. If they are trying to lock us up in violation of international rules, we are not trespassing on their territory.
Well, then we will have to think seriously about it. And we have never planned any attack on Europe, and they know it very well. You started talking about Europe. You probably saw. The Guardian is quoting you today, and it says that you are threatening again, that you are threatening the European Union.
This time it seems that the warning of the Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko that the fate of Europe is now in their hands and the negotiation process between Russia and The United States should be taken very seriously. We need to listen to Lukashenko. He is sending a signal. What signal? You know.
They didn't quote me quite accurately. Yesterday, I said That God forbid if Russia and the United States reach an agreement without Europe. Then Europe will be drained into the pipe based on the position that the US administration has taken today. And The US has grounds, and it's not just that Europe interfered in the American elections, and they bombed this Trump. So Trump has a personal wormhole towards Europe.
Based on the analysis of this situation, they need to think about what I said rather than engage in propaganda. If America and Russia reach an agreement, then Europe will really be drained into the pipe. It will be the end for them, as we say in Russia and Belarus. So they should listen and take their heads in their hands. If someone there has such an opportunity, they should do it.
If Russia and America come to an agreement, then Europe will be drained into the pipe. In order for the Americans on one side and the Russians on the other side not to drive them into a pipe, into the one Putin spoke about yesterday, which they blew up, they need to come here now, not on their knees. We don't want them crawling here, and Putin doesn't want that. And let them say, guys, let's talk. Let's negotiate.
And who in Europe is capable of negotiating? That's the second question. That's the second question. Well, they are. What they are?
Olga, listen. Who in Ukraine is capable of negotiating? Who? None of them. But we still talk to them.
Speaker 0: Well, we
Speaker 1: need to talk to those who want to. But we don't see such a passionate desire to talk with Belarus, with Russia, and so on. Although, I won't say. Let Vladimir Vladimirovich say. He talked to the Ukrainians.
They called him. They told him. He talked to some of them. But these were not public conversations, so I won't say. Is this some kind of classified information?
Yes. It is not public until Vladimir Vladimirovich makes it public. But I do not have such authority, but he told me about it. If they want, then they talk secretly for now. Olga.
So that journalists do not find out. Well, maybe Vladimir Vladimirovich will take a risk and say, who called him to talk? That is why they are such propagandists and so on. They're under this blanket, behind closed doors, as always usually happens, some intricacies are going on. Some conversations and negotiations are going on.
That is, are these some movements to overthrow Zelenskyy? Actually, yesterday you said about Zelenskyy that you predicted his fate. Yes. The US government will change, and they will change Zelenskyy. I didn't say it publicly that they will change Zelensky, but it turned out even cooler.
I said that the US administration will change and who will you be left with? No one will need you. It turned out that they even wanna change him. Do you think that president Zelenskyy should resign so that peace talks can resume? He either needs to resign and send someone with whom we can do business, or he needs to change.
What bad things did he say in this Oval Office? He said the right things, but people don't accept it.
Speaker 0: And
Speaker 1: he had to apologize for nothing. He had to agree with what his masters proposed, but he brought it to this himself. The three of us should sit down, but he probably doesn't have the strength for that anymore. I doubt it, and we need to come to an agreement. Listen.
Well, anything can happen. Well, this is a tough case. It's not just like they punched him in the face. Let's stop. Let's slowly revive our Slavic world.
But you call Zelenskyy differently. Sometimes Volodya. Sometimes, as I remember, a scoundrel. Well, Velodia, it's like a son, but he acted like a scoundrel. How else can I call him?
Yes. I called him that, but it was probably not polite of me, but it was definitely something you can't do.
Speaker 0: But what bad can
Speaker 1: I say about him if I was on good terms with him? Always. As I understood this world, I told him this. I advised him. But you see how he listened to me.
Speaker 0: But if he had listened to
Speaker 1: me, the situation would have been different. But aren't you offended by him? If he asks for political asylum, will you take him away? No. He won't ask me for that because he doesn't have mansions in Belarus.
He has them on the Cote D'Izur. And in England, as they say, he has castles and so on. He will go there. He has already settled there. He won't go
Speaker 0: here. If
Speaker 1: we talk about Zelenskyy and the fate of Ukraine, how could this be quickly resolved now? A truce, elections, or what? Well, if someone insists on elections, then this is an internal matter for the Ukrainians. I would not push this issue. Note that Putin has indicated this.
He is not pushing this topic. You mentioned the Orshnik missiles today. But first of all, everyone thought that you already had them. I don't have them yet. You said that Putin called and you tell him.
Did you promise when we would receive them? I tell him. When? He says, and I know this, that he has these missiles, that he has a stock of these missiles. And then when I press him, he says, listen.
You know that we are creating the Orshnik missile together. I tell him, wait. Do you really wanna shift your promise to me? And what should I do?
Speaker 0: He says, no.
Speaker 1: You make the launchers at your place, and we make the missiles. I say, wait. I have to figure it out. I started to figure it out. He was right.
And now I control the production of these launchers. The fact that the Belarusian issue, I control
Speaker 0: it. By the end
Speaker 1: of this year, I think, we are ready to put two launchers into service. We have such missiles. But should these first missiles, which have already been produced, more modern missiles, be placed near our enemies? Or should we place them somewhere near Moscow or at other positions?
Speaker 0: We
Speaker 1: must precisely determine this place and agree. I think that today and tomorrow we will discuss these issues with Vladimir Vladimirovich. There is no need to hurry here. We do not need haste now. There is no such need to quickly place Orshnik missiles somewhere near the city of Warsaw tomorrow.
If it is necessary, then we will install them there. But this is a serious weapon. You can't make it on your knee in six months or in one month. We will then hope for de escalation, as you said, for peace already this year. I don't just hope.
Something tells me, Olga, you understand that there are no more resources for this war. People are tired. We see.
Speaker 0: What is happening at the front? And
Speaker 1: I have already spoken about this somewhere. I emphasize, many people say, why do these Ukrainians fight like this? And the Russian says that they fight like this. Because they are like us. We graduated from the same academies.
That is, they have the same heart and the same good as us. They are just as stubborn. That is why many people die. But judging by our operation called the pike, our academies are better. It was brilliant.
Putin told you, Olga, it is not the academies that are better. It is your people who turned out to be stronger, of course, and your commanders. It is not a fact, but it probably did not reach the academies. There at the front, the guys work miracles, both on one side and on the other. They manually produce and make drones that you will not be able to produce at any factory.
They are kilobits, both here and there. It is true. Then we wish you a speedy victory. Therefore, we must end this. Thank you very much.
Alexander Grigorievich, thank you very much for finding the time and opportunity to give this interview.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
The Ukraine - Russian War Was Provoked! PRICELESS - MUST WATCH !!! Explaned by Jeffrey Sachs, David Sacks, John Mearsheimer, Douglas Macgregor, Scott Ritter If you still believe that Russia started this conflict in 2022, then you are either corrupt, ignorant, or brainwashed. https://t.co/PrRbrSnTji
Video Transcript AI Summary
- Democrats' spending caused inflation, and Biden's administration ignited global unrest after a peaceful period under Trump. Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal was botched, and NATO expansion talks provoked Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Opportunities for peace were rejected, leading to a prolonged war with mass casualties and depleted US stockpiles.
- The US has a history of military interventions, including the bombing of Belgrade, and illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, as well as involvement in the 2014 coup in Kyiv. The US government cannot be trusted.
- NATO expansion was promised not to move "one inch eastward" but Clinton signed off on plans to expand NATO to Ukraine. The US unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, leading to missile systems in Eastern Europe that Russia views as a threat.
- Putin sought to force Ukraine to negotiate neutrality, aiming to keep NATO off Russia's border. The US rejected negotiations, and a draft Russia-US security agreement proposing no NATO enlargement.
- Germany has aligned with the US, supporting NATO expansion, but previously had an independent foreign policy. Merkel knew NATO expansion was a bad idea but gave in to US pressure.
- The US is in a hot war with Russia, with US personnel on the ground in Ukraine. Russia could disable critical American infrastructure.
- The war in Ukraine is a US-Russia conflict provoked by the US with the aim of NATO enlargement. The American people have been told the opposite.
- The war started in 2014 with US involvement in the overthrow of Ukraine's government. The US rejected off-ramps and continues to fund the war, resulting in Ukrainian deaths and territorial losses.
- The US should negotiate with Russia, acknowledging mutual security concerns and halting NATO enlargement.
- The US is trying to destroy Russia through CIA operations in Ukraine. Russia is defending its right to survive.
- Globalists aim to exploit Ukraine's resources and destroy Russia. The BRICS nations are moving towards a gold-backed currency.
- The US has invested billions in Ukraine since 1991 to support a democratic government. Zelenskyy's team is adding fuel to the fire.
- The US blew up the Nord Stream pipeline, as promised by Biden.
- The US is turning Ukraine into a de facto member of NATO.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Democrats have recklessly spent trillions of dollars of wasteful and unnecessary government programs, setting off the worst inflation since Jimmy Carter. But worst of all, the Biden Harris administration has taken a world that was at peace under president Trump, and they lit it on fire. First, president Biden botched the Afghanistan withdrawal, displaying incompetence and weakness for the whole world to see. Then he provoked, yes provoked, the Russians to invade Ukraine with talk of NATO expansion. Afterward, he rejected every opportunity for peace in Ukraine, including a deal to end the war just two months after it broke out.
Now the war is deep into its third year with no end in sight. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead. Hundreds of billions of our taxpayer dollars have gone up in smoke. President Biden sold us this new forever war by promising it would weaken Russia and strengthen America. Well, how does that look today?
Russia's military is bigger than before, while our own stockpiles are dangerously depleted. Every day, there are new calls for escalation, and the world looks on in horror as Joe Biden's demented policy takes us to the brink of World War three.
Speaker 1: You seem very reliant on accepting Putin's world view rather than perhaps the stark reality of the barbarism with which he's executed this war.
Speaker 2: Yeah. May maybe because I know too much about The United States, because the first war in Europe after World War two was The US bombing of Belgrade for seventy eight days to change borders of a European state. The idea was to break Serbia, to create Kosovo as an enclave, and then to install Banda Steel, which is the largest NATO base in the Balkans, in the Southwest Balkans. So The US started this under Clinton, that we will break the borders, we will illegally bomb another country, we didn't have any UN authority. This was a, quote, NATO mission to do that.
Then I know The United States went to war repeatedly, illegally, in what it did in Afghanistan, and then what it did in Iraq, and then what it did in Syria, which was the Obama administration, especially Obama and Hillary Clinton, tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad, and then what it did with NATO illegally bombing Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and then what it did in Kyiv in February 2014. I happened to see some of that with my own eyes. The US overthrew Yanukovych together with right wing Ukrainian military forces. We overthrew a president. And what's interesting, by the way, is we overthrew Yanukovych the day after the European Union representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych to have early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand down of both sides.
That was agreed. The next thing that happens is the opposition, quote unquote, says we don't agree. They stormed the government buildings, and they deposed Yanukovych, and within hours The United States says yes, we support the new government. It didn't say, oh, we had an agreement, that's unconstitutional, what you did. So we overthrew a government, contrary to a promise that the European Union had made.
And by the way, Russia, The United States and the EU were parties to that agreement, and The United States An Hour afterwards backed the coup. Okay, so everyone's got a little bit to answer for. In 2015, the Russians did not say, We want the Donbas back. They said peace should come through negotiations. And negotiations between the ethnic Russians in the East Of Ukraine and this new regime in Kyiv led to the Minsk Two agreement.
The Minsk Two agreement was voted by the UN Security Council unanimously. It was signed by the government of Ukraine. It was guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. And you know what? And it's been explained to me in person.
It was laughed at inside the US government. This is after the UN Security Council unanimously accepted it. The Ukrainians said, we don't want to give autonomy to the region. Oh, but that's part of the treaty. The US told them, don't worry about it.
Angela Merkel explained in desight, in a notorious interview, after the 2022 escalation, she said, Oh, you know, we knew that Minsk II was just a holding pattern to give Ukraine time to build its strength. No. Minsk II was a UN Security Council unanimously adopted treaty that was supposed to end the war. So when it comes to who's trustworthy, who to believe, and so forth, I guess my problem, Pierce, is I know the United States government. I know it very well.
Don't trust them for a moment. I want these two sides actually to sit down in front of the whole world and say, these are the terms, then the world can judge, because we could get on paper clearly for both sides of the world. We're not gonna overthrow governments anymore, the United States needs to say. We accept this agreement, the United States needs to say. Russia needs to say we're not stepping one foot farther than whatever the boundary is actually reached, and NATO's not going to enlarge.
And let's put it for the whole world to see. You know, once in a while, treaties actually hold. Let me just explain in two minutes the Ukraine war. This is not an attack by Putin on Ukraine in the way that we are told every day. This started in 1990, February ninth '19 '90.
James Baker the third, our secretary of state, said to Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch eastward if you agree to German unification, basically ending World War two. And, Gorbachev said that's very important. Yes. NATO doesn't move, and we agree to German unification. The US then cheated on this already starting in 1994 when Clinton signed off on a, basically, a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine.
This is when the so called neocons took power, and, Clinton was the first agent of this. And the expansion of NATO started in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic. At that point, Russia didn't much care. There was no border other than with the Konigsberg, but other than that, there was no direct threat. Then, The US, led the bombing of Serbia in 1999.
That was bad, by the way, because that was a use of NATO to bomb a European capital, Belgrade, Seventy Eight Straight Days to break the country apart. The Russians didn't like that very much, but Putin became president. They swallowed it. They complained, but, even Putin started out pro European, pro American actually asked maybe we should join NATO when there was still the idea of some kind of mutually respectful relationship. Then nine eleven came, then came Afghanistan, and the Russians said, yeah, we'll support you.
We understand to root out terror. But then came two other decisive actions. In 02/2002, the United States unilaterally walked out of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. This was probably the most decisive event never discussed in this context, but what it did was trigger The US putting in missile systems in Eastern Europe that Russia views as a dire direct threat to national security by making possible a decapitation strike of missiles that are a few minutes away from Moscow. And we put in two Aegis missile systems.
We say it's defense. Russia says, how do we know it's not Tomahawk nuclear tipped missiles in your silos? You've told us we have nothing to do with this. And so we walked out of the ABM treaty unilaterally in 02/2002, and then in 02/2003, we invaded Iraq on completely phony pretenses as I've explained. In February, 04/05, we engaged in a soft regime change operation in Ukraine, the so called first color revolution.
It put in office somebody that I knew and was I was friends with, and I'm kind of distantly friends with president Yushchenko because I was an adviser to the Ukrainian government in nineteen ninety three, ninety four, ninety five. And then The US had its dirty hands in this. It should not meddle in other countries' elections. But in 02/2009, Yanukovych won the election, and he became president in 02/2010 on the basis of neutrality for Ukraine. That calmed things down because The US was pushing NATO, but the people of Ukraine on the opinion polls didn't even wanna be a NATO.
They knew that the country is divided between ethnic Ukrainian, ethnic Russian. What do we want with this? We wanna stay away from your problems. So in 02/22/2014, the United States participated actively in the overthrow of Yanukovych, a typical US regime change operation. Have no doubt about it.
And the Russians did us a favor. They intercepted a really ugly call between Victoria Nuland, my colleague at Columbia University now. And if you know her name and what she's done, have sympathy for me. Really, between her and The US Ambassador to Ukraine, Jeffrey Pyat, who was a senior state department official till today, and they talked about regime change. They said, who's gonna be the next government?
Ah, why don't we pick this one? No. Klitschko shouldn't go in. It should be Yat senuk. Ah, yes.
It was Yat senuk, and we'll get we'll get the big guy, Biden, to come in and do an attaboy, they say, you know, pat them on the back. It's great. So they made the new government, and I happened to be invited to go there soon after that, not knowing any of the background, and then some of it was, in a very ugly way explained to me after I arrived how The US had participated in this. All of this is to say The US then said, okay, now NATO's really gonna enlarge, and Putin kept saying, stop. You promised no NATO enlargement.
It's been by the way, I forgot to mention in 02/2004, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovia, Slovakia, Slovenia, '7 more countries in the not one inch eastward. And then okay. It's a long story, but The US kept rejecting the basic idea, don't expand NATO to Russia's border in a context where we're putting in goddamn missile systems after breaking a treaty. Twenty nineteen, we walked out of the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty. In 2017, we walked out of the JCPOA, the treaty with Iran.
This is the partner. This is the trust building. In other words, it's completely reckless US foreign policy. On 12/15/2021, Putin put on the table a draft Russia US security agreement. You can find it online.
The basis of it is no NATO enlargement. I called the White House that next week after that, begging them, take the negotiations. Putin's offered something. Avoid this war. Oh, Jeff, there's not gonna be a war.
Announce that NATO's not gonna enlarge. Oh, don't worry. NATO's not gonna enlarge. I said, oh, you're gonna have a war over something that's not gonna happen? Why don't you announce them?
And he said, no. No. Our policy is an open door. This is Jake Sullivan. Our policy is an open door policy.
Open door for NATO enlargement. That is under the category of bullshit, by the way. You don't have your right to put your military bases anywhere you want and expect peace in this world. You have to have some prudence. There's no such thing as an open door that we're gonna be there and we're gonna put our missile systems there and that's our right.
There There's no right to that. We declared in 1823, Europeans don't come to the Western Hemisphere. That's the Monroe Doctrine, the whole Western Hemisphere after all. Okay. Anyway, they turned down the negotiations.
Then the special military operation started, and five days later, Zelensky says, okay. Okay. Neutrality. And then the Turks said, we'll we'll mediate this. And I flew to Ankara to discuss it with the Turkish negotiators because I wanted to hear exactly what was going on.
So what was going on was they reached an agreement with a few odds and ends. And then The United States and Britain said, no way. You guys fight on. We got your back. We don't have your front.
You're all gonna die. But we got your back as we kept pushing them into the front lines. That's six hundred thousand deaths now of Ukrainians since Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell them to be brave. Absolutely ghastly. So when you think about your question, we have to understand we're not dealing with, as we're told every day, with this madman like Hitler coming at us and violating this and violating that, and he's gonna take over Europe.
This is complete bogus, fake history that is a purely PR narrative of the US government, and it doesn't stand up at all to anyone that knows anything, and if you try to say a word of this, I got completely cut out of the New York Times back in 2022 after writing my whole life columns for them. Oh, I'd send this. Okay. And by the way, online, it's not even space. You know, there's no limit.
They could publish 700 words. They would not publish, since then, 700 words for me about what I saw with my own eyes about what this war is about. They won't do it. We're playing games here. So, God forbid, a nuclear power comes at us.
I don't know what's gonna happen, but we came at them, and we should stop going after China and Taiwan. So the war started. What was Putin's intention in the war? I can tell you what his intention was. It was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality.
And that happened within seven days of the start of the invasion. You should understand this, not the propaganda that's written about this. Oh, that they failed and he was gonna take over Ukraine. Come on, ladies and gentlemen. Understand something basic.
The idea was to keep NATO, and what is NATO? It's The United States off of Russia's border. No more, no less. I should add one very important point. Why are they so interested?
First, because if China or Russia decided to have a military base on the Rio Grande or in the Canadian border, not only would The United States freak out, we'd have war within about ten minutes, but because The United States unilaterally abandoned the anti ballistic missile treaty in 02/2002 and ended the nuclear arms control framework by doing so. And this is extremely important to understand. The nuclear arms control framework is based on trying to block a first strike. The ABM treaty was a critical component of that. The US unilaterally walked out of the ABM treaty in 02/2002.
It blew a Russian gasket. So everything I've been describing is in the context of the destruction of the nuclear framework as well. And starting in 02/2010, the US put in Aegis missile systems in Poland and then in Romania. And Russia doesn't like that. And one of the issues on the table in December and January, December '20 '20 '1, January '20 '20 '2, was does The United States claim the right to put missile systems in Ukraine?
And Blinken told Lavrov in January 2022, the United States reserves the right to put middle sis missile systems wherever it wants. That's your putative ally. And now let's put intermediate missile systems back in Germany. The United States walked out of the INF treaty unilaterally in 2019. There is no nuclear arms framework right now.
None. When Zelensky said in seven days, let's negotiate, I know the details of this exquisitely because I've talked to all the parties in detail. Within a couple of weeks, there was a document exchanged that president Putin had approved, that Lavrov had presented, that was being managed by the Turkish mediators. I flew to Ankara to listen in detail to what the mediators were doing. Ukraine walked away unilaterally from a near agreement.
Why? Because The United States told them to. Because The UK added icing to the cake by having Bojo go in early April to Ukraine and explain. And he has recently, and if your security is in the hands of Boris Johnson, God help us all. Keith Starmer turns out to be even worse.
It's unimaginable, but it is true. Boris Johnson has explained, and you can look it up on the website, that what's at stake here is Western hegemony. Not Ukraine, Western hegemony. Michael and I met at the Vatican with a group in the spring of twenty twenty two where we wrote a document explaining nothing good can come out of this war for Ukraine. Negotiate now because anything that takes time will mean massive amounts of deaths, risk of nuclear escalation, and likely loss of the war.
I wanna change one word from what we wrote then. Nothing was wrong in that document. And since that document, since The US talked the negotiators away from the table, about a million Ukrainians have died or been severely wounded. And the American senators who are as nasty and cynical and corrupt as imaginable say this is wonderful expenditure of our money because no Americans are dying. It's the pure proxy war.
One of our senators nearby me, Blumenthal, says this out loud. Mitt Romney says this out loud. It's best money America can spend. No Americans are dying. It's unreal.
Now, just to bring us up to yesterday. This failed. This project failed. The idea of the project was that Russia would fold its hand. The idea all along was Russia can't resist as Zbigniew Brzezinski explained in 1997.
The Americans thought we have the upper hand. We're gonna win because we're gonna bluff them. They're not really gonna fight. They're not really gonna mobilize. The nuclear option of cutting them out of swift, that's gonna do them in.
The economic sanctions, that's gonna do them in. The HIMARS, that's gonna do them in. The ATACMs, the f sixteens. Honestly, I've listened to this for seventy years. I've listened to it as semi understanding, I'd say, for, about fifty six years.
They speak nonsense every day. My country, my government. This is so familiar to me, completely familiar. I begged the Ukrainians, and I had a track record with the Ukrainians. I advised the Ukrainians.
I'm not anti Ukrainian, pro Ukrainian completely. I said save your lives. Save your sovereignty. Save your territory. Be neutral.
Don't listen to the Americans.
Speaker 3: Could you maybe explain that a little further, what role Germany plays in your opinion in the current conflict concerning Ukraine?
Speaker 2: Well, the Germany has been completely aligned with The United States. It's been a kind of, bulwark of The US led policy. The Biden administration was carrying out what I think is fair to say the long term, and I would say deep state policy of The United States, which was to expand NATO eastward, antagonize Russia, try to surround Russia, strategically weaken Russia, and chancellor Scholz was absolutely a part of that, supporting it at every step. And I think it has gotten us into a big mess, frankly.
Speaker 3: Do you think an independent German foreign policy is even possible?
Speaker 2: Of course, it's possible. Germany has had an independent foreign policy in the past, Willy Brant, and Ostpolitik was not a US initiative, it was a German initiative. In 02/2003 when The US stupidly went to war in Iraq, the German government, the chancellor was outspoken. No, that's a bad idea. There have been many occasions where Germany has had its foreign policy at odds with The United States, and what brings us to the current crisis, the war in Ukraine, you can date to 02/2008 in a sense, that was when NATO said we will expand to Ukraine into Georgia.
That was a decision pushed by The United States against the better judgment of European leaders who knew this is reckless, this is provocative, why stir up things in Europe? But The US pushed it, and something decisive happened. Actually, chancellor Merkel has described it in in her memoirs, in her recent book. She describes how at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 02/2008, she and, Sarkozy said to George Bush junior, this is a bad idea. We don't want to provoke Russia.
We don't need to commit to expanding NATO. And The US was dead set on doing it for, basically, deep state reasons, which is, The US is The US. We'll do what we want. We can do what we want. What can Russia do to stop us after all?
We are the most powerful country in the world. That's the mindset.
Speaker 3: But that also the reason? Do you think there's there's no other reasoning behind it? Maybe I don't know. Resources in Ukraine, security reasons, obviously, because they wanna expand NATO. So is it just this this idea where the we're a superpower, and that's why we're just gonna do
Speaker 2: what we're gonna do? That's the overwhelming reason. I don't think you get huge economic returns out of this and so forth. It's it's actually been very costly. But the point I wanted to make is that, chancellor Merkel knew this is a bad idea, and she resisted and resisted, but The US said, no.
No. No. We're gonna do it. And then she gave in. She gave in, in the decision of NATO to announce that Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO.
That's the conclusion of the Bucharest summit. It's sad that she gave in. She knew it was a bad idea. She protested against it, but in the end, she didn't resist The US pressure. I think that was really, unfortunately, a historic bad mistake because if she had stood up to The US pressure, the right outcome would have been achieved.
No such declaration, and we would not have gone on to war. Of course, the war started six years afterwards in 2014 with the violent coup against Yanukovych, but all of that was part of a long term US led process, and had Germany, especially Germany and France and Italy and other major countries of Europe resisted, we would not be where we are today. We would be in a much safer place. There would not be a war in Ukraine. Ukraine would not have lost a million people to death and grievous injury, so we would have been much better off, but The US got its way, and we are where we are because of that.
Speaker 3: What do you think is the difference from 02/2008, the Bucharest summit, to 02/2003 where the German government did resist enjoining the war in Iraq. I mean, it's only five years if you really think about it.
Speaker 2: No fundamental difference. I I think it was a mistake, actually. This is high stakes. People in these positions are consequential. They make decisions that have consequences, and I don't believe that, it was the case that, chancellor Merkel had no choice, that it's inevitable, that The United States had to have its way.
I don't believe that. I think these are decisions that are taken. This one was a bad decision. I believe, by the way, that even as late as 2021, before the escalation with the Russian invasion in February 2022, that invasion could have been avoided, and the reasoning is that Putin put on the table some very specific proposals to avoid that invasion, and The United States refused to negotiate over them. Once again, if at that stage, the German government together with the the French government together with Italy, maybe together with Spain, had said, look, we're at the core of this.
NATO is not The United States. NATO is an alliance. We happen to live right here near Russia, we need a different approach rather than simply provocation. Even then, things could have changed. Of course, things had advanced a long way.
Chancellor Merkel had made another mistake, and it's sad for me to say it, by the way, because I really admired her in many, many ways. I thought she was very serious, very consequent, very responsible, not a flighty person, but a very level headed, very intelligent person, and a very well directed person. But she made another mistake, was that Germany was the guarantor of the Minsk II agreement. The Minsk II agreement was an agreement reached in February 2014 to, 2015, excuse me, a year after the coup, to stop the escalating violence, and it could have done so. It was an agreement in which the breakaway parts of Ukraine, the Donbas region, Donetsk and Lugansk, would have received political autonomy.
Well, it was voted by the UN Security Council, Germany and France were to be the guarantors of this UN backed treaty, and The US and Ukraine blew it off saying we don't like it, it was with a gun to our head, we're not going to accept it, and unfortunately the guarantors of the agreement, Germany and France, went along again with The US, and recently, of course, chancellor Merkel in a pretty infamous interview said, well, it wasn't really an agreement, it was just to buy time. By the way, I don't believe that was her motive back in 2015. I think she really meant it.
Speaker 3: That's interesting because I was gonna say, this is what this is the last information I have it I have about Minsk, that it was just implemented or it wasn't implemented, but they discussed it, negotiated it just to buy time. But you say that back then when they did negotiate it, that you did take it seriously or that they took it seriously, and then later she kind of
Speaker 2: back
Speaker 3: tracked
Speaker 2: on that. I think Mhmm. Later on when it became so unpopular to have any kind of compromise with Putin, she backtracked and said, oh, no. No. No.
It was a little bit of a trick. It wasn't real. But the fact of the matter is it was a good agreement, and it was a real agreement, and I believe she believed in it. And I have reason to know that actually in a kind of surprising way, which is that, in in major ways, the Minsk Two agreement was modeled on the autonomy of the German speaking Alpine region of Italy, Bolzano and South Tyrol.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Zittor.
Speaker 2: Now this is a a German minority region which demanded autonomy after World War two. And at first, there was a kind of pseudo autonomy, but then there was then protests and unrest and then a real autonomy. Now it's a it's a booming happy region. Italy is very happy with it. Everybody likes the arrangements.
Region. And what's interesting is that this was very much on chancellor Merkel's mind, I'm told by people who know, as the model for what should happen in the dawn bus. So I think she really believed in this approach. I believe in it. I don't think it was a a bad agreement.
It was a smart agreement. It would have ended the war. But The United States blew it off because The US is the leaders are stupid. They're they're arrogant. They don't know what they're doing.
They think they can do whatever they want. And so they didn't take it seriously even though it was a UN Security Council, even though President Putin was also a big part of it, even though there was a Normandy process. It was serious, but not to the arrogant Americans. But what's unfortunate is, chancellor Merkel didn't stand up and say, we are the guarantors of this. You, Ukraine, must take it seriously.
Germany went silent. France went silent. And so in a sense, what we've seen since 02/2008 in my interpretation is that the major European countries just bent to The US will. I don't really know why that is. Honest honest to goodness, I don't know why that is.
Speaker 3: You make it sound like you make it sound very human from what you're saying. Like, you're saying American leaders are just stupid. Like, they're arrogant. So this is a very human characteristic to have.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: And then when you talk about, like, mistakes that were made just like Iraq or like Ukraine or not adhering to Minsk and not saying, yes, we're gonna we're the guaranteers of Minsk, so we're gonna pull through. It just makes it sound very human that these were just human errors, human mistakes that are, like you said, very consequential because we're talking about people who are elite politicians, and when they make a decision, it affects millions of people.
Speaker 2: That's exactly right. And I should clarify that when it comes to The US, these are decisions that were taken decades ago in a sense because it's not, ad hoc decisions. Back in the early nineteen nineties when the Soviet Union ended, the CIA, the, Pentagon, the security state apparatus of The US said, okay. Now we're the sole superpower. Now we're in charge.
Russia's weak. We can do what we want. That was the mindset. And the decision was taken, we know now, by historians, by people who participated already back in 1994 that The US would lead NATO eastward, contravening the solemn promises that were made in 1990 in Germany as part of German reunification, on 02/09/1990 when James Baker third, our Secretary of State, said to President Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will move not one inch eastward, but The United States Deep State said, we don't have to abide by that, they're not even here anymore. So Clinton already in 1994 started the eastward process by internal agreement.
The first, actual policies were revealed in the second half of the nineteen nineties, but the decisions were taken in 1994. So I don't want to say that it's ad hoc decisions by The US. It's consistently stupid decisions based on a strategy that was an arrogant, hubristic strategy. But what I do say is that Germany could have stopped it because it wasn't just German opposition, Europeans knew all along. This is a bad idea, this is provocative, why stir up the big bear to our east?
This is a a big country. Things are quiet and fine. Why stir things up? And they tried to explain that to The United States in my interpretation, but The US doesn't listen. So at that point, German leaders had a decision, make The US listen, say no, we're not going to have a conclusion of the Bucharest summit, in which case The US, in my view, would have had to back down, or consent, but then with huge consequences.
I can tell you, another European leader who was, around today as a leader was involved in 02/2008 and said to me afterwards, personally again, what is your president doing? This is so reckless, this is so irresponsible. They promised us, this person explained to me, that they wouldn't do this, and then Bush went off on Christmas vacation and they came back and they announced we're expanding NATO. Okay. This is a European leader who wouldn't dream of saying this publicly right now, but I I not only heard it with my own ears, this is somebody I'm friendly with, And it's extremely annoying and disappointing actually because these are not high school games, this is not a board game, this is not a poker game, This is real life with, hundreds of thousands of people dying because of these decisions.
Europe knew it. The United States is stupid. I'm gonna say it again. I I mean the leaders who are basically arrogant is the right point. You know, stupid means they're so arrogant they can't see through their own arrogance.
They think they call the shots, and the European leaders let them do it for at least the last sixteen years since 02/2008. This is a war between The United States and Russia. It's not a war between Ukraine and Russia. This is the most basic point. This is a war provoked by The US with US intentions, with US aims, for NATO enlargement, and, it would take a president that understands the basics of this and why this was so wrongheaded, and, such a an absurd and tragic idea that dates back thirty years now, inside the US security state to bring it to a close, but Biden was not that person, clearly.
Biden, bought into this whole reckless approach thirty years ago already, and has been part of this tragic adventure, that was somehow going to bring down Russia, but in the end, it's destroying Ukraine. So, yes, we need a we need a new president, and we need a president that, honestly understands what this has all been about. And the one thing, that we've discussed and the one thing that's absolutely true is the American people have never been told what this is all about. They've been told exactly the opposite.
Speaker 4: And I don't think even now there's an appreciation that NATO forces, clearly US forces in some form, federal employees or federal contractors are fighting in Russia, fighting Russia.
Speaker 2: Oh, this is, absolutely clear.
Speaker 5: We are
Speaker 4: at war with we have a hot war with Russia right now. We are in
Speaker 2: a hot war because it's not only our financing, our equipment, our aims, our objectives, our strategy, our advice, but it's our personnel on the ground. They are not necessarily in US uniform. Sometimes they're called mercenaries. Sometimes they're just not identified, but they are calling the shots. And, Russia knows it, and that by itself, is is is a big reason for alarm.
Speaker 4: Well, especially because Russia doesn't need to lob a nuke into Poland or Europe or The United States to fight back. Russia could disable critical American infrastructure without, you know, being obvious about it. Like, we're very vulnerable if Russia decides to strike at us.
Speaker 2: Well, the horrible thing about, this war from the start was that it could never conceivably have made sense for The United States to cross Russia's red lines because either Russia would win on the battlefield as it's doing, or Russia would lose on the battlefield and then escalate. And the escalation could be in many forms. Like you say, it could be attacks on US interests around the world, through proxies, or it could be as the Russians made clear if they're losing tactical nuclear weapons to start, and, with the escalation always in sight if, Russia was really profoundly threatened. So in the end, there was no path to success of a venture that started back in the Clinton administration, continued with Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden, which was to push NATO to Ukraine despite the clearest possible, brightest, biggest red line that Russia could convey in peacetime, which is don't do that. And Russia's attitude towards NATO and Ukraine was exactly analogous to what our attitude would be to a Russian military base on the Rio Grande in Mexico.
It would be, don't try that. Yes. And, this is obvious. It's not subtle. It has been expressed for more than thirty years.
But now we know, and more and more comes out and will come out, but Clinton approved this plan in 1994, that NATO would go east, including to Ukraine. Zbig Brzezinski laid it out in 1997, in an article which I always asserted was not Brzezinski's idea, but his way of telling his, colleagues, in the civilian sector, let's say, what was already decided. And that is that, yes, of course, we will go all the way to Ukraine. It became public in 02/2008 when, George W. Bush junior pushed at the Bucharest NATO summit, the commitment to enlarge NATO to Ukraine.
It became, a cause of war in February 2014 when The US conspired to overthrow a Ukrainian president that was against NATO enlargement who wanted Ukraine to be neutral because that president understood if you are Ukraine between east and west, try to keep your head down and stay neutral. And he understood that, so we had to overthrow him. And the The US did, and that's when the war started. So this was predictably a failure on every scenario. The particular scenario that is unfolding right now for the moment is, ironically, perhaps the safer one, which is that Russia's winning on the battlefield.
Yes. Because if Russia were losing on the battlefield, we would be seeing escalation to nuclear war. Well, first of all, this is purely money down the drain. So if they wanna rip up another $61,000,000,000, which is not chump change, they they seem intent on doing it, but it will mean nothing except more destruction for Ukraine. The fact of the matter is if if you don't listen to, the nonsense in our mainstream media, but listen to your show and others, people would know that, this war has destroyed Ukraine, and the longer it continues, the less there will be of Ukraine.
It's it's very simple actually. If this goes on longer, Russia will capture more territory. If it goes on long enough, Russia will capture Odessa. Kyiv, if if we continue the way we're doing, and this is a this is a Biden project that goes back ten years now, will completely destroy Ukraine. So the idea that this is siding with Ukraine is absurd.
Anyone who really follows events knows that we're not siding with Ukraine. We have paid for hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to go to the front lines and die for more and more territory to be lost because the most basic point of this war, which is that we overthrew a government in Ukraine in 2014 that wanted neutrality so that we could push NATO enlargement, was reckless, stupid, and doomed to fail, and it failed. Now Biden is, just trying to hide the failure to get past November, but the failure is, seen on the battleground every day. If the Republicans play into this, it's unbelievable. Shame on them.
They're they're basically on the right side, although Biden bludgeons them every day. You'll be the one to lose Ukraine. Well, the the truth of the matter is that Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine for a decade. The disaster is, there in the graves of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and lost territory. This is a war that never should have happened.
It was about NATO enlargement where the Russians said no NATO on our borders, and Americans who who were following this like our CIA director, Bill Burns, was then The US Ambassador to Russia in 02/2008 said, this is crazy. No way. The entire Russian political class is against this. But Biden and Obama and Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland, Jake Sullivan, Tony Blinken, they just barged ahead. They've wrecked everything, and now they want another $61,000,000,000 to get them past November.
It's it's a disgrace. It's completely a disgrace.
Speaker 6: To play devil's advocate, let me, you know, give you the other side and then allow you to respond to that. You know, what do you say to people that oh, maybe acknowledge there were certainly missteps with, with the expansion of NATO and the provocation. But nevertheless, Russia chose to respond to that with an invasion. The situation in Ukraine is due to that invasion. And so what do you say to people who think, well, but we so we are now responding to that invasion by funding, not committing American troops, but funding a resistance in Ukraine that wants to continue fighting?
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, the war began ten years ago when Victoria Noula not only passed out cookies, on Maidan, but, engaged in in insurrection to violently overthrow a government in Ukraine. Pretty stupid. Pretty stupid to have a regime change operation, on a country with a 2,000, kilometer border with Russia. That's our American foreign policy. That's when this war started.
This war didn't start in February 2022. It started in February 2014. It started with Newland. It started with Blinken. It started with Sullivan.
It started with Biden, who was a key person in that whole thing. And then the fight went on for ten years, and then in December 2021, Putin said, look, stop the NATO enlargement. We can avoid an escalation. I talked to the White House at that point. Nah.
We don't stop anything. They just thought they had all the cards. We're gonna cut them out of this swift banking system. We're gonna bring the economy to the knees. Bunch of nonsense by ignorant people.
And so Putin escalated. He didn't start the war. He escalated the war. And within basically a week, Zelensky said, okay. Okay.
Okay. We can be neutral. And the Turks mediated negotiations. And then though the US government wants to hide all of these facts which are sitting out there for those who know where to find them, The US intervened and told the Ukrainians, you keep fighting. And we have we have our senators who say this is the best the best money that money can buy because it's Ukrainians dying, not Americans.
They're weakening Russia. Well, they're not weakening Russia, but they are killing Ukrainians. So this is not responding to Putin's invasion. The war started ten years ago, and we kept refusing every off ramp till this day, Ravi. You know, you hear Putin say, and if you listen, every day, we're open to negotiations.
And then these fools in the US government say, there's no one to negotiate. They don't wanna negotiate. And then president Putin says, oh, we we we we're open to negotiation. Oh, there's no one to negotiate is what we hear from The US side. This is just narrative.
It's destroyed Ukraine, and they just rip up money like there's no tomorrow. So another 61,000,000,000. And now I hear from from you that the the latest plan is to take the illegally confiscated assets of Russia because there's no legal basis to do this and use that. That'll be really great for the international financial system, I'll tell you, because these are people who don't think ahead one day. They just improvise day by day and then they'll find out, oh, things don't work out so well for the US dollar, for, The US as reserve currency for, The US place in the world because these people are acting like clowns, frankly.
Day by day, not thinking ahead, doubling down on lost gambles, and everything to tell a story so that they can get to the elections in in the way they see fit.
Speaker 7: Professors, I wanna ask you about how The United States gets out of this now because I'm reminded of conversations that surrounded the war on Afghanistan for years, which was that we shouldn't have gotten into it. This is a mistake, but now we destabilized the country. We are in neck deep. We can't just stop funding and abandon this project, and that's a hamster wheel of sorts. Right?
So there are some people that I think are gonna listen to this and say, well, I I agree with everything you're saying, but what do you do at this point? It does you know, is it just a sunk cost, or is there some obligation to unwind this in a way that's responsible and doesn't leave Ukrainians high and dry?
Speaker 2: Ukrainians are high and dry no matter what we do. We've killed nearly half a million of them through this stupid project, And the ones that, that throw good money after bad are the ones themselves that are personally culpable for this. This is Biden's project. So this is the first starting point. You don't throw lie good lives, after those already dead and and, good money after bad when you have an absolute failure and disaster on your hands.
By the way, this is like every American effort. I'm old enough to remember Vietnam. You're saying words said about Vietnam. We do this over and over and over again in The US because our so called leaders have no sense and they don't think ahead. So, yes, we have to stop this.
But the one thing that we don't do, and it's really a bit of a mystery to me, it's the worst I've seen in my whole lifetime, we don't negotiate. Does Biden call Putin and say we need to talk? No. That would be weakness. That would be appeasement.
They don't even have the idea that you negotiate anything. And, you know, if you try everything by a military approach and a failed one, and you do it in these proxy wars where it's the people themselves, in these countries that are dying on the front lines, and you don't know anything about diplomacy, well, you make a complete mess of the world. And so the answer is, the first thing is The US and Russia should talk to each other because there's a cause of this war, and that's NATO enlargement. And by the way, that's no secret, and that's not propaganda. Even the, secretary general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said that absolutely explicitly as did the top negotiator for Zelensky, David Arkhamia.
This a war about NATO enlargement. So why doesn't Biden call up Putin and say, you know what? We gotta stop the war. And that whole NATO enlargement that I was party to going back to the nineteen nineties and, to twenty fourteen coup and all, that was a bad idea. Let's figure out how to stop the war, recognize mutual security, and stop the bloodshed and massacres in Ukraine.
If Biden were really acting like a president, that's what he would do.
Speaker 6: It's been about a year since a group of economists wrote an open letter about you accusing you of denying the agency of Ukraine, peddling Putin talking points, all of those kinds of things. It's a year later. How do you respond to them?
Speaker 2: Well, I don't respond. I tell them I told you so. I told them so from the beginning that this would be a complete disaster for Ukraine. People don't wanna hear this. They don't understand.
They don't know enough about American history. I told them Ukraine is gonna be like Afghanistan, and boy, is it like Afghanistan right now. So they didn't wanna hear. That's not right. That's not fair, professor Sachs.
I was telling them facts. I was giving them some good advice. They didn't wanna hear that. They wanted to hear about victory, glory, how Ukraine's gonna succeed, that great counter offensive, all the rest, all the baloney. But I said from the beginning that this would be a disaster.
I said this is just the latest neocon debacle. And I said explicitly it was gonna leave Ukraine like Afghanistan, and it was completely avoidable. So that's what I tell them. I'm sorry. Listen.
Pay attention. Learn something. That's what I say to them.
Speaker 1: The economist and public policy analyst, professor Jeffrey Sachs. Professor Sachs, great to have you back on Uncensored, particularly at this moment, which feels like a moment in history. What is your take on where we are, post this extraordinary Oval Office, shakedown, really, is what went down.
Speaker 2: It is a big moment. I I think what our new secretary of state Marco Rubio said a few weeks ago is the key. We are in a multipolar world. I think recognizing that is the first order of us all staying alive to avoid the risks of nuclear war. President Trump said several times that his greatest concern is to avoid World War three.
I say bravo on that because we had a lot of neglect of that obvious point for many, many years. So we are in a multipolar world. China is powerful. Russia is powerful. United States is powerful.
If Europe gets its act together, which I hope it does, Europe can be powerful. India will be a great power. That's a reality. Now it's a matter of these great powers, not blowing each other up, not getting into a a direct war, and also making sure that the rules of the game don't abuse the rest of the world. This is feasible.
I think we're on a more realistic course now than we were, actually just a few weeks ago.
Speaker 1: Do you think we're going to get a peace deal in Ukraine led by Donald Trump? And if so, how do you think this settlement will look?
Speaker 2: Well, we know how the settlement will look when it comes, and you can look it up online. There was an 04/15/2022 draft agreement nearly signed by Ukraine and Russia. If you reread it as I've done several times in the last few days, it's a good agreement. There were a few details left to be, concluded, but, basically, it was fine. But The United States and UK talked Ukraine out of the agreement, said continue to fight.
Don't accept neutrality. And, unfortunately, since that bad advice till today, about one million Ukrainians have lost their lives or have been gravely wounded. It wasn't good advice. So we know what the agreement will look like. It was already just about agreed.
Speaker 1: And so for those who are not, up to speed with that, 2022 memorandum, how would you summarize it?
Speaker 2: Yeah. The the agreement was that Ukraine would be neutral, that there would be security guarantees involving all of the great powers, including Russia, which I interpret and would recommend should be through the UN Security Council. There was an annexed map which showed what the territorial lines would be, and this was at the verge of being signed. This, I think, is the basis of an agreement, which is end the war, end the bloodshed, end the destruction. The longer it goes on, the worse for Ukraine.
I said that two years ago, that any delay meant more loss of life, more devastation. Ukraine would not win on the battlefield, and that's true. Now Donald Trump is basically saying, look. Biden played poker. He bluffed quite a bit.
He thought that The US economic sanctions would bring the Russian economy to its knees. Nope. He thought that the attackers and the HIMARS would bring Russia to defeat. He thought that, unrest inside Russia would prevent Russia.
Speaker 1: And so the assumption would be then that they what? They freeze on the current lines, the 20% that Russia's now occupying Ukraine, they would keep, albeit, I assume, with no chance for a sovereignty because Ukraine wouldn't agree to that,
Speaker 2: that Ukraine would No. No. I I I I first of all, we can't negotiate. This is
Speaker 1: No. I'm asking you what you think is most likely.
Speaker 2: Right. Oh, what I think should be done is a permanent peace, not a ceasefire or an armistice line. I don't want to revisit this war and have irredentist sentiments, and lobbying for a renewed war and the new military buildups and all the rest. I want peace. There should be peace.
Ukraine's mistake but by the way, it wasn't Ukraine's mistake. It was an American project that we've discussed that goes back to 1994, was to push NATO all the way to Ukraine, and that crossed Russia's understandable national security red line. And I would have respected Russia's national security red line because I felt that if you violated it, we would get to where we are today. So I would aim for peace, not a settlement that is grudging, imposed. We we never will accept the sovereignty of Russia.
What kind of peace is that? All of that is is just a prelude to the next war. We should have real peace. By the way, there are three groups of people that are involved or should be involved. They're the generals.
They know something about fighting, sometimes well or sometimes badly. They're the politicians. They know something about grandstanding. But then there are the diplomats. The diplomats should work out a real settlement.
And while it's not very popular to say, I'm gonna say it, the United Nations Security Council should be the ultimate place where that arrangement is settled, including China, including Russia, including Britain, France, The United States, all as co guarantors of a true peace. Not an armistice line, not a frozen conflict, not something that Ukraine never accepts. No. An end to this war because we have more important things to do on the planet than have a future in which the question of Lugansk and Donets play a central role in somebody's politics.
Speaker 1: There there are people like Elon Musk calling for America to withdraw from NATO. What just quickly, what is your response to that?
Speaker 2: It will happen if there is no settlement of this war. If Europe says well, I'm all in by the way, of Europe getting its act together. And I was in the European Parliament saying this just very recently.
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 2: But if it but if Europe says, we fight until 1991 borders are restored, The United States will wash its hands of all of this. I I can tell you, they will not play a losing hand. They started this, by the way. The US started this. The US said we can go wherever we want.
Big Brzezinski laid it all out in 1997 as clearly and explicitly as one can do. So The United States started it, but The US drops countries like hot potatoes. That's my whole life, whether it's Vietnam or Afghanistan, now Ukraine. So if the Europeans push so hard of Zelensky because for whatever reason as an individual says what is not in the interest of his country, it could be pretty bad for the relations between Europe and The United States. I would not recommend that at all.
Speaker 8: So in 02/2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 02/2014, there was a coup. They started persecuting those who did not accept the coup, and it was indeed a coup. They created a threat to Crimea, which we had to take under our protection. They launched the war in Donbas in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians.
This is when it all started. There is a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above. They launched a large scale military operation, then another one. When they failed, they started to prepare the next one. All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO's doors.
Speaker 9: June 2, the airplane attack, the air strike against the Lugansk City Hall. There was a photo made after that attack of Ine Kukarusa, a woman with red hair. Both of her legs were blown off. She was sitting there looking up one moment before she died. She was looking into the camera going, what are you gonna do about this?
What are you gonna do about this? And it was like she looked into my soul, and she was asking me. And so I said, yes. Of course. I'm going there to fight.
I'm gonna I'm going to avenge the murder of these, innocent civilians.
Speaker 10: On that day, eight people were killed and 28 wounded.
Speaker 11: To indiscriminate artillery shells. Switching to the Ukrainian language, she makes a heartrending plea to the president. We used to dance, sing, do everything in Ukrainian, she says. Poroshenko, mister Poroshenko, please listen to us. Why don't you understand your people?
Be a man. Be human. Please stop your aggression. Stop this war. But there is little sign of that.
This once thriving city is now half empty. Its railway station bombed. The force is unleashed by this conflict, greater perhaps than mister Poroshenko can control.
Speaker 12: Didn't start in February. The war started in 2014. And since 2014, NATO allies have provided support to Ukraine with training, with equipment. So the Ukrainian armed forces were much stronger in 2022 than they were in 2020 in 2014 and of course that made a huge difference when President Putin decided to attack Ukraine.
Speaker 2: When the Warsaw Pact military alliance of the Soviet Union was unilaterally disbanded in 1990 by president Gorbachev, of the Soviet Union, that was the opportunity to end NATO as well. Instead, the neocons made NATO an instrument of their delusion of US global hegemony. So instead of disbanding NATO, which would have made sense because NATO was no longer needed to defend against a no longer existent Soviet Union, NATO became an instrument of US power expansion. It finally led to wars in Georgia and Ukraine because The US pushed so far that the Russians said, no. We're not going to have you you, The US, on our borders militarily, something completely sensible and obvious to generations of American diplomats, but they were, overridden by the neocons, by the presidents that went along with this, and Europe bought into it, in a kind of fatuous way.
NATO doesn't need to exist for European security. NATO should have been disbanded in 1991 when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded and when the Soviet Union ended. What was NATO? NATO was to prevent a Soviet invasion of Europe. Russia was not invading Europe.
Even now, the pop pop pop pop that you hear from the British or others, this is absurd stuff, especially when the goal of NATO of The US is something completely different. It is to surround Russia, and it's all explained for decades. If anyone cares to read about this and the Russians said, ah, you're getting awfully close. You promised you wouldn't do this. And in 02/2007, Putin made a famous speech at the Munich Security Conference.
He said, don't go any farther. Stop. Of course, when The United States hears this, what do they say? We have to go farther. No one tells us what to do.
Believe me, this is the American mentality. I grew up in that country. I understand. Because if you look at the Black Sea, you would have Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia completely surrounding Russia. Now why would you do that?
Because a geographer would tell you, Brzezinski would tell you, that ends Russian power in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. That surrounds them. This is clear. And by the way, it was exactly the idea of Palmerston and Napoleon the third in 1853 in the first Crimean War. This is the second Crimean War we're fighting right now.
It was exactly their idea. Take the Russian fleet out of the Black Sea. We're doing it again. And and one should understand, and this is really the point, and it's really the tragedy. For The United States, for Brzezinski and others, this was a game, kind of a he called it a chessboard.
This is a game. For Russia, this is core national security. Okay. Now you're fighting right on Russia's border. One side, it's core national security.
The other side, it's a game. Who do you think is gonna win?
Speaker 12: President Putin actually sent a a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what what he sent us, and that was that that was a precondition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO across his borders.
Speaker 2: Flashback.
Speaker 12: This is fundamentally not about NATO expansion.
Speaker 13: It was never about NATO enlargement.
Speaker 5: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO expanding toward Russia. This was never about NATO? It's absolutely nothing to do with NATO expansionism. And it has nothing to do with NATO.
Speaker 14: This is not about NATO.
Speaker 5: This is not about NATO. It's not really about NATO. This is not about NATO. Seriously, it's not about
Speaker 14: NATO.
Speaker 5: This was never about NATO. It was never about NATO. Let's be honest. This has never anything to do with NATO. Nothing to do with NATO at all.
Yeah. He's claiming it's, like, security purposes, but we can see the clear reason.
Speaker 10: But NATO is not the reason.
Speaker 5: This is not about NATO expansion. This is about the democratic expansion. Ukraine bans religious organizations. We are protecting democracy right now. Ukraine is banning political parties.
Because it's a democracy. Ukraine restricts books and music. It's about democracy. Ukraine won't hold elections. It's about democracy.
And it's not about NATO expansion. This war in Ukraine is not about NATO.
Speaker 3: It's not
Speaker 11: about NATO. It's not about NATO.
Speaker 5: It has nothing to do with NATO. Nothing to do with NATO expansion.
Speaker 1: It's not about NATO expansion.
Speaker 15: Nothing to do with with NATO.
Speaker 11: It isn't really about NATO. It's not about NATO.
Speaker 16: It's not about NATO enlargement.
Speaker 5: In fact, it has nothing to do with NATO. It's not about NATO encroaching. It was not about NATO. NATO is just as a fictious imaginary adversary for for for mister Putin and for Russia. It was never about NATO.
That's not what it's been about. It's been about him trying to expand his sphere of influence.
Speaker 16: Hang on.
Speaker 5: I mean,
Speaker 1: the two are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, Russia has wished for a sphere of influence over Ukraine. But if the West had not challenged Russian interests so directly, I think that there there was a chance to avoid this war.
Speaker 12: He wanted us to sign a promise never to enlarge NATO. We rejected that.
Speaker 5: The reason why Putin invaded Ukraine is because of his evil.
Speaker 12: Evil. It's about that Putin wants to rebuild Soviet empire of evil like president Reagan told.
Speaker 5: It's about Putin being sick.
Speaker 14: I don't
Speaker 5: know how you negotiate peace with a madman, but nobody negotiated with Hitler. People were comparing him to Hitler.
Speaker 13: Hitler. And remember Hitler
Speaker 11: He's a Hitler.
Speaker 5: We're back when the Nazis invaded Poland. This is exactly the same what Hitler was doing to Jews. This is the same. Putin will not stop. Putin is reminiscent of Hitler.
Hitler. This reminds me of Hitler and Hitler.
Speaker 2: Hitler. He's the
Speaker 16: new Hitler.
Speaker 5: Who Hitler This is about a butcher trying to kill people everywhere in the world, just not Ukraine, Syria, all over the place.
Speaker 16: I hear you. Senator Lindsey Graham, always great to talk to you. Thanks so much. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Alright. Straight ahead.
Speaker 16: One often hears the argument, I'm sure you've all heard this, that in the eight years between when the crisis broke out in February 2014, and when the war began in February 2022. You see that eight year window there? Just keep the big picture in your mind. August 2008, that's the Bucharest summit, but the crisis doesn't break out until February 2014. And then the war breaks out eight years later, February 2022.
The argument is that in the eight years between when the crisis broke out and when the war broke out this past February, the United States and its allies paid little attention to bringing Ukraine into NATO. In effect, the issue had been taken off the table, and thus NATO enlargement could not possibly have been an important cause of the escalating crisis in 2021, and the subsequent outbreak of war earlier this year. This line of argument is false. In fact, the Western response to the events of 2014 was to double down on the existing strategy, and effectively make Ukraine a de facto member of NATO. The alliance began training the Ukrainian military in 2014, averaging 10,000 trained troops annually over the next eight years.
NATO was training 10,000 troops per year for eight straight years. In December 2017, the Trump administration decided to provide Kyiv with defensive weapons. Other countries quickly got into the act, shipping even more weapons to Ukraine. In addition, Ukraine's military participated in joint military exercises with NATO forces. In July 2021, less than a year ago, Kyiv and Washington co hosted hosted Operation Sea Breeze, a naval exercise in the Black Sea that included navies from 31 countries and was directly aimed at Russia.
Two Months later, in September 2021, the Ukraine army led Rapid Trident twenty one, which was, according to an official press release from the US Army, it was quote, a US Army Europe and Africa assisted annual exercise designed to enhance interoperability among allied and partner nations. Remember, I'm making the argument here, we were turning Ukraine into a de facto member of NATO. It was designed to enhance interoperability among allied and partner nations, to demonstrate units are poised and ready to respond to any crisis. NATO's efforts to arm and train Ukraine's military explains in good part why it has fared so well against Russian forces in the ongoing war. It's not simply Russian incompetence, it's the fact that we armed and trained those Ukrainian forces and turned them into a formidable fighting force.
A headline in a recent issue of the Wall Street Journal put it quite nicely. This is quoting that headline in the Wall Street Journal. The secret of Ukraine's military success, colon, years of NATO training. Years of NATO training. In addition to NATO's ongoing efforts to make the Ukrainian military a formidable fighting force, the politics surrounding Ukraine's membership in NATO and its integration into the West changed in 2021.
There was renewed enthusiasm for pursuing Ukrainian membership in NATO in 2021. And the change took place in both Kyiv and in Washington. Let me start by telling you what happened in Kyiv. President Zelensky, who had never shown much enthusiasm for bringing Ukraine into NATO, and who was elected in March 2019 on a platform that called for working with Russia to settle the ongoing crisis, reversed course in early twenty twenty one. And not only embraced NATO expansion, but also adopted a hard line approach toward Moscow.
He made a series of moves like shutting down pro Russian TV shows and stations, and arresting an especially close friend of Putin and charging him with treason. These were all moves that were sure to anger Moscow. President Biden, who moved into the White House in January 2021, Biden is moving into the White House just as Biden, just as Zelensky is beginning to do a flip on his views towards Ukraine and towards Russia. President Biden had long been committed to bringing Ukraine into NATO, and was also super hawkish towards Russia. And you wanna remember that when he was vice president in the Obama administration, President Obama assigned him, Joe Biden, with the Ukraine portfolio.
So he was no stranger to this issue. Unsurprisingly, on 06/14/2021, about a year ago, almost a year ago to the day, NATO issued the following communique at its annual Brussels summit. I'm gonna quote. We reiterate the decision made at the two thousand and eight Bucharest summit that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance, dot dot dot, as an integral part of the process, we reaffirm all elements of that decision. We reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits.
We stand firm in our support for Ukraine's right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference. On 09/01/2021, Zelensky visited the White House, where Biden made it clear in his public statements that The United States was quote, firmly committed to Ukraine's Euro Atlantic aspirations. Then on 11/10/2021, Secretary of State Tony Blinken and his Ukrainian counterpart signed an important document. It's called The US Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership. It's available on the website or on the internet if you're interested.
This is what it says. The aim of both parties is to quote, underscore a commitment to Ukraine's implementation of the deep and comprehensive reforms necessary for full integration into Europe and Euro Atlantic institutions. That document explicitly builds not just on quote, the commitments made to strengthen The Ukraine US strategic partnership by presidents Zelenskyy and Biden, end of quotes, but it also reaffirms The US commitment to the, quote, two thousand eight Bucharest summit declaration. In short, there is little doubt that starting in early twenty twenty one, Ukraine began moving rapidly toward joining NATO.
Speaker 2: So the war started. What was Putin's intention in the war? I can tell you what his intention was. It was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality. And that happened within seven days of the start of the invasion.
You should understand this, not the propaganda that's written about this. Oh, that they failed and he was gonna take over Ukraine. Come on, ladies and gentlemen. Understand something basic. The idea was to keep NATO.
And what is NATO? It's The United States off of Russia's border. No more, no less. I should add one very important point. Why are they so interested?
First, because if China or Russia decided to have a military base on the Rio Grande or in the Canadian border, not only would The United States freak out, we'd have war within about ten minutes, but because The United States unilaterally abandoned the anti ballistic missile treaty in 02/2002 and ended the nuclear arms control framework by doing so. And this is extremely important to understand. The nuclear arms control framework is based on trying to block a first strike. The ABM treaty was a critical component of that. The US unilaterally walked out of the ABM treaty in 02/2002.
It blew a Russian gasket. So everything I've been describing is in the context of the destruction of the nuclear framework as well. And starting in 02/2010, the US put in Aegis missile systems in Poland and then in Romania, and Russia doesn't like that. And one of the issues on the table in December and January, December '20 '20 '1, January '20 '20 '2, was does The United States claim the right to put missile systems in Ukraine? And Blinken told Lavrov in January 2022, the United States reserves the right to put middle sis missile systems wherever it wants.
That's your putative ally. And now let's put intermediate missile systems back in Germany. The United States walked out of the INF treaty unilaterally in 2019. There is no nuclear arms framework right now. None.
Speaker 14: When
Speaker 2: Zelensky said in seven days, let's negotiate, I know the details of this exquisitely because I've talked to all the parties in detail. Within a couple of weeks, there was a document exchanged that president Putin had approved, that Lavrov had presented, that was being managed by the Turkish mediators. I flew to Ankara to listen in detail to what the mediators were doing. Ukraine walked away unilaterally from a near agreement. Why?
Because The United States told them to. Because the UK added icing to the cake by having Bojo go in early April to Ukraine and explain. And he has recently and if your security is in the hands of Boris Johnson, god help us all. Keith Starmer turns out to be even worse. It's unimaginable, but it is true.
Boris Johnson has explained, and you can look it up on the website, that what's at stake here is Western hegemony, not Ukraine, Western hegemony. Michael and I met at the Vatican with a group in the spring of twenty twenty two where we wrote a document explaining nothing good can come out of this war for Ukraine. Negotiate now because anything that takes time will mean massive amounts of deaths, risk of nuclear escalation, and likely loss of the war. I wanna change one word from what we wrote then. Nothing was wrong in that document.
And since that document, since The US talked the negotiators away from the table, about a million Ukrainians have died or been severely wounded. And the American senators who are as nasty and cynical and corrupt as imaginable say this is wonderful expenditure of our money because no Americans are dying. It's the pure proxy war. One of our senators nearby me, Blumenthal, says this out loud. Mitt Romney says this out loud.
It's best money America can spend. No Americans are dying. It's unreal. Now, just to bring us up to yesterday, this failed. This project failed.
The idea of the project was that Russia would fold its hand. The idea all along was Russia can't resist as Zbigniew Brzezinski explained in 1997. The Americans thought we have the upper hand. We're gonna win because we're gonna bluff them. They're not really gonna fight.
They're not really gonna mobilize. The nuclear option of cutting them out of swift, that's gonna do them in. The economic sanctions, that's gonna do them in. The HIMARS, that's gonna do them in. The ATACMs, the f sixteens.
Honestly, I've listened to this for seventy years. I've listened to it as semi understanding, I'd say, for, about fifty six years. They speak nonsense every day. My country, my government. This is so familiar to me, completely familiar.
I begged the Ukrainians, and I had a track record with the Ukrainians. I advised the Ukrainians. I'm not anti Ukrainian. I'm pro Ukrainian completely. I said, save your lives.
Save your sovereignty. Save your territory. Be neutral. Don't listen to the Americans.
Speaker 16: What's going on here is that the West is leading Ukraine down the Primrose path, and the end result Ukraine is going to get wrecked. And I believe that the policy that I'm advocating, which is neutralizing Ukraine and then building it up economically and getting it out of the competition between Russia on one side and NATO on the other side is the best thing that could happen to the Ukrainians. What we're doing is encouraging the Ukrainians to play tough with the Russians. We're encouraging the Ukrainians to think that they will ultimately become part of the West because we will ultimately defeat Putin, and we will ultimately get our way. Time is on our side.
And, of course, the Ukrainians are playing along with this, and the Ukrainians are almost completely unwilling to compromise with the Russians and instead wanna pursue a hard line policy. Well, as I said to you before, if they do that, the end result is that their country is gonna be wrecked. And what we're doing is in effect encouraging that outcome. I think it would make much more sense for us to neutral to to work to create a neutral Ukraine. It would be in our interest to bury this crisis as quickly as possible.
It certainly would be in Russia's interest to do so. And most importantly, it would be in Ukraine's interest to put an end to the crisis.
Speaker 17: The CIA has 20 bases in Ukraine. Do you know what a CIA base is? It's a major center of operations. The the size of the the number of personnel can be assigned to each base can go from, say, 10 to to over a hundred. In Vietnam, which was a ten year war for us, we had 12 to 16 bases.
In Ukraine, we have 20 bases. This is a major effort by the CIA. This isn't minor. This isn't peripheral. And those bases cover the entire gamut of operations from unconventional warfare, guerrilla warfare, to deep, reconnaissance strikes inside Russia, to political attacks on Russia, to undermining the the Russian population inside this to create pro Russian armies, mercenaries to invade.
This is what the CIA is doing in Ukraine. This is a major effort. This isn't a joke. This isn't a gimmick. This isn't a, you know, a nice to have.
This is a major effort by The United States to destroy Russia. The golden objective of this is the strategic defeat of Russia. Strategic defeat doesn't mean that Russia just gets a slap on the wrist. When you strategically defeat Russia, you collapse the Russian economy. That means Russia goes back to the nineteen nineties.
You collapse Russian society back to the nineteen nineties. You collapse Russia politically back to the nineteen nineties. This is literally trying to take Russia back in time. That's what the strategic defeat of Russia is. So when people say, why is Putin doing this?
He's doing it to save Russia from this campaign being orchestrated by The United States to destroy Russia. This isn't a game. This isn't a gimmick. This is as real as it gets. Talk to anybody who lived in Russia in the nineteen nineties and ask them how it was.
The horror of that decade. Millions of Russians died needlessly. Democracy wasn't created. It was destroyed not by Russia, but by The United States. There's a memorandum that just came out published in the National Security Archives, written by a senior state department official, I think, Mary, who was the charge of the affairs number two at the embassy in 1994.
And he says straight up, what are we doing? We are destroying Russian democracy, not building Russian democracy. In backing Boris Yeltsin, we have destroyed the institutions of democracy we claimed we want to build. People criticize Putin and say Putin is the one who destroyed democracy, but Putin didn't inherit democracy. He inherited a CIA gimmick plan operation to use democracy to take control of the Russian government.
Not real democracy, but democracy in, you know, in in in quotation marks. People need to understand this. I'm not saying that the Russians haven't done anything wrong. I'm sure we can look at things and say they could have done that better. They could have done that better.
They could have done that better. But if people don't understand that war was literally the last option, Russia did everything possible to prevent this war. Tony Blinken just gave an interview that gave it all away where he admits. He said, in September of twenty twenty two '21, we began secretly sending weapons to Ukraine. Yeah.
Why? It's an important date, September 2021. In June 2021, Biden met with Putin in Geneva in their summit. And at that summit, Biden promised Putin. Putin said, if you want our troops to stop moving along the borders, then you need to stop what's going on here.
Stop the Ukrainian buildup. Stop the threats. And the way to do that is through implementation full implementation of the Minsk Accords. And Biden said, yes. I will instruct Blinken to do this.
That was in June. In September, Blinken secretly sending weapons to Ukraine. Why? Had no intention whatsoever of putting pressure on Germany and France to implement Minsk. In October, the Russians confronted the Germans and the French and said, you must do this, and they said no.
Why? Well, we now know. Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande have acknowledged that Minsk was always a sham, always a lie, always meant to buy time to build for NATO to build Ukrainian army so they could attack and liberate the Donbas, to eliminate to finish the CIA's job of eliminating the political viability of the Russian population of the Donbas. And Russia said not just no, but hell no. But did they go to war original?
No. In December December seventeenth, Russia provides two draft treaties, one to NATO, one to The United States, saying, we're not looking for war. We're looking for a new European security framework that brings peace and stability to the region. It was rejected by NATO and The United States. In January and February, Russia reached directly to the Ukrainians and tried to negotiate it in, and the Ukrainians mocked the Russians.
And when the Russian incursion, the special military operation began, it wasn't a war of destruction or occupation. It was a campaign designed to get Ukraine to the negotiating table, and it worked. Six days after Russia crossed the border, Ukraine initiated or participated in the first round of negotiations in Gomel Byeloruss. And by the March, they had a completed treaty, a peace treaty. A peace treaty was signed and ready to be implemented, and the west said no.
Yeah. The west said no. So don't blame Russia. Russia is blameless in all of this. Russia is simply defending Russia's right to survive.
This isn't a war about Russia trying to destroy Ukraine. This is a war about the west trying to use Ukraine to destroy Russia.
Speaker 18: Or in Ukraine, which are happening there. And what do you you know, what what is the end game?
Speaker 19: Well, for the globalists that are running the show, this is a globalist neocon elite in both on the Hill as well as in the White House and these elites in Europe, particularly in Paris, Berlin, London. They're all interested in seeing BlackRock take over Ukraine, number one, so that it can systematically stripped of its resources and turned into a subjugated state that belongs to the larger globalist elites. But they also wanna see that happen to Russia, which is why this war was never about Ukraine. It was always about what can be done to destroy Russia. And, of course, since the people in charge didn't perform any strategic analysis, they never thought about purpose, method, or end state.
They concluded that Russia today is still the Russia of 1992. It's weak. It's prostrate. Its economy is ineffective. Remember the McCain statement?
Oh, Russia is Spain with a gas station. All of these arrogant displays of American hubris treating Russia as though it was a third class nation with a fourth class military. Well, we're getting an education right now. We paid no attention to the Russians who had legitimate concerns about what we were doing in Eastern Ukraine. We were building an army to attack them.
We put a hostile government into that country in 2014, and we kept telling them that it made no difference to us what they thought or what they cared about. They said we don't want NATO on our border. No one paid attention. President Trump tried to listen, but he was surrounded by people who subverted him. People who are not loyal to the president, who who took an oath of obedience to the orders of the president and then ignored them.
So what's what's the outcome? You've got a very serious war that could become regional, even global, and no one in the White House seems to really grasp that. But we're losing. The globalists are losing. And when the ground dries and in June, you're straight you're gonna see a massive Russian offensive, and most of what we call this thing called Ukraine is gonna be swept away, especially that government in Kyiv.
But that government doesn't represent the interests of the Ukrainian people. They represent the interests of this globalist elite who are interested in resources and stripping them and using them and exploiting them to make money.
Speaker 18: Yeah. It feels like, you know, the biggest threat to America is actually what's happened to the petrodollar when you have Putin now talking with the Saudis and Putin now talking with Xi, and you get rid of the petrodollar, and all of sudden, all that borrowing that we do, where we're living way above our means, that's no longer possible, plausible, or or worse.
Speaker 19: I think what you're seeing is this war has become financial as well as military. And the globalists understand that they're going to lose this war. And what will come of this is that the BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, are going to be increased by 81 additional members. And all of these people are going to go to a currency that is backed by gold. And once they go to that currency backed by gold, whether it is one currency or a basket of currencies, it doesn't make any difference.
Yes. We are in a lot of trouble. The globalists know that, and it is why they are so desperate right now. And the greatest fear that I have is that when the Russians do attack and it becomes abundantly clear that Ukraine is finished. I mean, it's already obvious to anybody who visits a place for any length of time.
It's in ruins. But once that occurs, I fear that there will be pressure to commit US forces in Poland and Romania along with Polish forces and potentially Romanian ones to Western Ukraine. And if that occurs, the gloves will come off because, truthfully, thus far, Putin has exercised tremendous restraint, tremendous patience. He does not want a war with the West. If he wanted that, we'd already have it.
But if we intervene in Western Ukraine, it's over. We'll be in a full fledged war.
Speaker 18: Expand on that a little bit because it's sort of interesting. You know? I like
Speaker 19: I think we've grossly miscalculated. Putin had made several speeches over the last twenty years repeatedly saying, please do not advance the border to Russia. Do not try to transform Ukraine into a hostile actor, an actor with hostile intentions towards Russia. What happens in Ukraine is of an existential strategic interest to us. Just as, theoretically, what happens in Mexico is of the existential strategic interest to us.
Although this administration has decided to ignore it. He expected that we would negotiate, that he would demonstrate that this was serious, and that Russia wanted to wanted its population in Eastern Ukraine, which is really Russian, to have equal rights before the law. He wanted to end the oppression of the Russians that lived there, and he wasn't going to surrender Crimea. The reason he went into Crimea is he was afraid it was gonna be turned into a US naval base. Biden said, our goal is regime change.
Our goal is to get rid of Putin, and our goal is ultimately to divide Russia into constituent parts, then exploit it. All of his supporters, his staffers, everyone in the globalist camp knows this is the truth. The so called oligarchs, Koloboyski, Soros, and others were all part of this. None of this is news. Finally, he said enough's enough.
He stopped. They set up a strategic defense. They ran an economy of force mission, and now they have a force in place that can go as far as it needs to go, which includes to the Polish border. They have a plan for a thirty one thirty one month war against us if we insist on fighting it, and we are in no shape to fight a war. We can't even recruit the United States Army or the marines.
The marines are running around trying to recruit illegals that are being encouraged to do so by the administration. Is that is that what you want in the ground force to fight for this country? Forget it. It's not gonna work.
Speaker 14: Our first task is a ceasefire in Donbas. I assure you, I'll do whatever it takes for our heroes to no longer die. I
Speaker 13: haven't heard a word about the civilians in Donbas, and I'm sure neither of you. Zelenskyy was speaking about the militants of the so called anti terrorist operation. At that time, Eastern Ukraine had been under shelling for five years, and that's why the words about peace were so eagerly awaited. I would like to remind you that in 02/2014, there was a coup d'etat called Maidan. Did it happen on its own without anyone's help?
I agree with you. There is no doubt. The opposition sees power with the support of various radical right wing movement.
Speaker 17: The
Speaker 13: eastern and southern regions of the country stood against the new illegal government, but the resistance was brutally suppressed. On 05/02/2014, Ukrainian nationalists burned 48 people alive in the trade union's house in Odessa. At that time, Zelensky, a popular actor in Ukraine and Russia, had zero reaction, but the Odessa events became a point of no return for the country. Residents of Donbas decided to separate from Ukraine. In response, Kyiv declared its citizens as terrorists and launched an army against them.
Over time, the civil war escalated into an armed conflict with Russia. However, all of this was preceded by extensive preparation and support from The United States and Western countries.
Speaker 15: The United States has invested some $5,000,000,000 in Ukraine, since 1991 when it became an independent state again after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that money has been spent on supporting the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to have a strong democratic government that represents their interest.
Speaker 13: As a result, destroyed cities, chaos, and the loss of life on both sides of the conflict. In our country, it's usual to blame everything on Russia. But what didn't president Volodymyr Zelenskyy do himself to prevent this horror? Firstly, he could have implemented the Minsk agreements. In September 2014, Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France signed them.
One of the critical conditions for peace was granting special status to Donbas. December two thousand nineteen, a joint conference following the Normandy format meeting.
Speaker 14: It is necessary, of course, to extend the agreement term on the special status of certain regions of Donbas, and ultimately make this norm permanent.
Speaker 13: Here comes the moment for Zelenskyy to repay debt for wealth, for coming to power. Just look at it. He doesn't even hide his smirk during the speech of Russian president Vladimir Putin. Apparently, he already knew that the Minsk agreements were just a scream, covering the preparations for a full scale war between Ukraine and Russia. As for Russia and Donbas, they were deceived from the very beginning.
Furthermore, both Zelenskyy and Petropur Shchenko were eager to join not only the European Union, but also NATO. And NATO secretary general Jan Stoltenberg has been promising to accept Ukraine for many years. Of course, this irritates and angers Russia. Who wants to have a constant military threat at their doorstep? As an American, I wouldn't be happy either.
For example, with Chinese military bases on the Mexican border. But Russia is different. Let's turn Ukraine against it, arm it to the tee, and sit it in the battle. US Foreign Policy Expert James Jatras accurately assesses what is happening.
Speaker 20: Our policy, however, is to weaken and destroy Russia. For that purpose, yes, we are interested in Ukraine. Ukraine is a club we can beat the Russians with. It has nothing to do with Ukraine, nothing to do with Ukrainians who are simply expendable people as far as these governments are concerned.
Speaker 13: But it seems like the authorities of Ukraine don't really care. Besides, president Zelenskyy and his team are adding fuel to the fire.
Speaker 14: I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. If they aren't held again or their results don't guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working, and all the package decisions 1994 are being questioned.
Speaker 13: The Budapest Memorandum is an agreement under which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. In 1994, it was signed by Russia, United States, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Ukraine had to agree because it didn't have the money to maintain a nuclear arsenal, and recent history has shown that the world is very lucky it turned out that way.
Speaker 14: Even if we couldn't maintain them, them, we could reduce the nuclear capabilities instead, and we could use it to blackmail the entire world. And they would give us money for the maintenance.
Speaker 13: Imagine that, a nuclear power that blackmails the whole world, demanding money. Would you like to have such a neighbor? I'm sure you wouldn't. No one would. The president of Ukraine practically declares his desire to regain nuclear weapons, and Russia initiates a special military operation.
To bring it to this point, Ukraine had to be made an enemy of Russia or anti Russia.
Speaker 2: If you live on the continent next to Russia, you don't stand up and scream every day, you're evil. You're evil. You're evil. You actually sit down, discuss, and negotiate. You don't let The United States blow up the pipeline that provides the energy for Europe and then sit there like a You're done saying that.
Dumb idiot. We don't know who did it. Well, I can give you 50 quotations by American officials saying we'll never let that happen. I can quote on video, show you the president of The United States saying on 02/07/2022, if Russia invades, Nord Stream will be finished. And then the reporter says, but, mister president, how can you do that?
And he says, believe me, we have our ways.
Speaker 5: If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the the the border of Ukraine again, then there will be we there will be no longer a Nord Stream two. We we will bring it into it.
Speaker 21: Okay. But how will you how will you do that exactly since the project and control of the project is within Germany's control?
Speaker 5: We will I promise you we'll be able to do it.
Speaker 2: Is that a clue? Well, the Europeans couldn't figure that out, that little clue. There's a chancellor Schultz standing next to Biden. Quiet. He heard all of this, Then the pipeline gets blown up.
We don't know who did it. We don't know. And then there are the investigations, but those have to be kept secret even from the Bundestag, even from the public, even from the United Nations. This is not foreign policy. This is not foreign policy.
This is doing what The United States wants, but now you obviously can't just follow Trump. Obviously, they thought naively they could follow Biden. I could have told them, and I did tell them repeatedly. No. You can't.
You should understand The United States. You should understand how weak the foreign policy is. You should understand how crazy the idea of US unipolarity is. Understand this. You know what I was told here?
Don't talk to me anymore. Who blew up Nord Stream?
Speaker 10: We?
Speaker 8: You for sure.
Speaker 4: I was busy that day. Nate, do you have do you have I did not blow up Nord Stream. Thank you, though.
Speaker 12: Was it was it Lichtna? Was Lichtna?
Speaker 8: You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi.
Speaker 4: Do do you have evidence that NATO or the CIA did it? By Nord Stream, disintegrating. Can you describe what happened?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, you know, The US blew up Nord Stream, as it promised to on probably dozens of occasions, but the most recent, of those occasions, was president Biden said I think it's 02/07/2022. I may have the date a little bit off, but he said in a statement to the press, Russians invade Ukraine, Nord Stream is finished. And reporter who asked him the question, I think from Germany, but in international, said, well, mister president, how how can you say that? How could you do that?
And he looks and he says very gravely, believe me, we have our ways. Okay. So this is, and then you can go back and find a thousand clips Oh, yeah. Victoria Nooly
Speaker 14: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2: And Cruz, and everyone's saying, this must stop. This must stop. We'll never let it happen. It will be destroyed. It will be ended.
Okay. So then it's blown up. Okay? And you and and and the America, you know well, before we get to that, I was on Bloomberg soon afterwards. I don't remember whether it was the next day or the day after, and I said, you know, I think The US did this.
Mister Sachs, how can you how can you say that? And I said, well, first the president said he was gonna it was gonna be over, and then there's actually, you know, some readings of planes in the vicinity and so forth, and and and there was the tweet by the former and now current foreign minister of Poland. Thank you, USA, with a picture of of of the the water bubbling over the blown up pipeline, Radek Sikorsky's tweet. And there was Anne Applebaum's husband. Yes.
There there there was a bit of evidence that, well, yes, The United States had done this. Thank you very much. They said they would, and they did it. I was yanked off the air within thirty seconds. I could
Speaker 20: The sledgehammer that we have against Putin is to shut down the Nord Stream two pipeline and do it permanently.
Speaker 10: This is a real acute and proven threat.
Speaker 5: I am a big proponent of, making sure we stop Nord Stream two from from happening.
Speaker 3: Stopping Stopping the Nord Stream two.
Speaker 5: And, you know, Trump also isn't wrong to identify Nord Stream two, this pipeline that you talked about today, as problematic.
Speaker 10: There is still time to stop Nord Stream two if we act quickly.
Speaker 22: The timeline for action is short.
Speaker 10: And I'm not gonna stop working to halt Nord Stream two to stop Russia.
Speaker 20: End it once and for all.
Speaker 4: I mean, he needs to kill the keys the Nord Stream Nord Stream two pipeline right now,
Speaker 5: and I think the most important thing right now and what Zelenskyy said is they want Nord Stream two stopped. That's what I see as the most tangible reason and the tangible, effect.
Speaker 20: I believe we must stop this Nord Stream two pipeline.
Speaker 5: And we should have brought the project to an end.
Speaker 10: There's still time to stop it,
Speaker 5: but we need to act quickly.
Speaker 20: Nord Stream two is danger is a danger to peace as we know it.
Speaker 2: Nord Stream two is energy blackmail.
Speaker 20: It's Putin's pipeline. It's a trap for the a Russian trap.
Speaker 5: There will be we there will be no longer a Nord Stream two. We we will bring an end to it.
Speaker 3: We will put an end to it.
Speaker 5: Germany should cancel the Nord Stream two gas pipeline. We're looking at a variety of things we could do there. We've been so far using trying to use other tools to stop the Nord Stream two. And we got legislation that was appropriate to now have delayed this project significantly. We need further tools.
We're prepared to use those tools should you provide them, to us. And and we've also used our diplomatic capabilities.
Speaker 10: This pipeline must be stopped, and the only way to prevent the completion is to use all the tools available to do that.
Speaker 15: If Russia invades Ukraine, One way or another, Nord Stream two will not move forward.
Speaker 22: Kill Nord Stream two now and let it rust beneath the waves of the Baltic.
Speaker 2: The operator of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, which run between Russia and Germany, says that three lines on the Baltic Seabed were damaged on Tuesday.
Speaker 5: It was a deliberate act of sabotage, and now the Russians are pumping out disinformation lines. This is
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
The World's Longest Serving Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview to the US bloggers, Mario Nawfal, Larry C.Johnson and Andrew NapolitanoMarch 12, 2025 Jeffrey Sachs: "Lavrov is absolutely remarkable. Russia has one of the best diplomats I've ever seen." https://t.co/ZOanISCUnh
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
ZELENSKY IS FIRED‼️ ❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥 Full video of how Trump and Vance DESTROYED Zelensky! JD Vance and President Trump are ABSOLUTELY COOKING Zelensky for his lack of respect to the American people. https://t.co/qsfMrDU3os
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
❗️The Ukrainian Government controlled Defense of Ukraine account warned in 2018 that if Zelensky became President he "would destroy Ukraine with the help of NATO." ⚡️Well. This post aged well... https://t.co/QwXIo7vtqn
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Get Vaxxed or “FACE DISCIPLINARY ACTION" - White House “Federal employees will have about 75 days to be fully vaccinated,” Press Sec. Jen Psaki responds to reporter’s question on exceptions for getting jabbed. https://t.co/g3MwOcWuJK
Video Transcript AI Summary
There will be limited exceptions to the vaccine mandate for legally recognized reasons, such as disability or religious objections. The interagency task force will provide a ramp up period, and federal employees will have about 75 days to be fully vaccinated. This provides more than enough time to complete the vaccination series. If a federal worker fails to comply, they will go through the standard HR process, which includes counseling, and face progressive disciplinary action. Each agency will work with employees to ensure they understand the benefits of vaccination and how the vaccines are free, easy, and widely accessible. The mandate will be applied once the executive order is signed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Religious objections or or medical reasons not to get the vaccine? Yes. There will be limited exceptions for legally recognized reasons such as disability or religious objections. I know you have all seen the reporting on this, but let me just give you a few top lines of it. So how this will work is the task force, the interagency task force, will provide a ramp up period, and we expect federal employees will have about seventy five days to be fully vaccinated.
That gives people more than enough time, in our view, to start and complete their vaccination series. If a federal worker fails to comply, they will go through the standard HR process, which includes counseling, and face disciplinary action, face progressive disciplinary action. Each agency is going to work with employees to make sure they understand the benefits of vaccination and how the vaccines are free, easy, and widely accessible. But it will start to be applied once the executive order is signed.