reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@MyLordBebo - Lord Bebo
Putin’s Munich speech in 2007 … the speech that confronted the west harshly for the first time and marks the beginning of growing tensions. A must see for every geopolitical enthusiast. https://t.co/2byL4VOA3S
@upholdreality - COMBATE |🇵🇷
10 minutes of Lukashenko mauling the BBC https://t.co/6bILzQlsRR
@SprinterFamily - S p r i n t e r
35 years in 40 seconds : How Russia aggressively approached the borders of the NATO bloc https://t.co/K71O8q68KZ
@Urwrstnghtmare2 - 📵#BOB(BewustOngevaccineerdeBurger) 🏛
Waarom is er oorlog in Oekraïne? https://t.co/7JqiuBpHvg
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2014, three foreign ministers from Poland, Germany, and France arrived in Ukraine to guarantee a peaceful resolution between the government and the opposition. However, just two days later, a coup d'etat took place, allegedly orchestrated by the United States. The European guarantors claimed ignorance of the situation. The memory of these events seems to have faded in Europe, but Ukraine has not forgotten. The desire to bring Ukraine into NATO and the ongoing conflict in the Donbas region have contributed to the current tragedy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So in 2014, 3 foreign ministers arrived from Europe, from Poland, Germany, and France. They signed as guarantors of the agreement between the government of the time, president Yanukovych, and the opposition. They agreed that everything would be resolved peacefully. 2 days later, they carried out a coup d'etat. Why?
Why did they not decide to win through elections? They did it to make a point to create conflict. That's why. And you may ask who did this? Our American cronies.
And the Europeans, who signed as guarantors of the agreement between the government and the opposition, pretended they knew nothing at all. And now you can ask anyone in Europe, does anyone remember anything about it? No. But we have not forgotten, and we won't forget this, plus the unbridled desire to crawl up to our borders, taking Ukraine into NATO. All this led to this tragedy, plus the bloody events in the Donbas region that lasted 8 years.
All of this led to the tragedy we are now experiencing.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Why I'm interviewing Vladimir Putin. https://t.co/hqvXUZqvHX
Video Transcript AI Summary
We are in Moscow to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin. The war in Ukraine has had significant global impacts, reshaping military alliances and the world economy. However, many English-speaking countries remain unaware of these changes due to corrupt and biased media outlets. While numerous interviews have been conducted with Ukrainian President Zelensky, no Western journalist has interviewed Putin. Americans have the right to know about a war they are involved in, and we have the right to inform them. Despite attempts to suppress this interview, it can be watched for free on our website. We encourage viewers to watch and make their own judgments.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're in Moscow tonight. We're here to interview the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin. We'll be doing that soon. There are risks to conducting an interview like this, obviously, so we thought about it carefully over many months. Here's why we're doing it.
1st, because it's our job, or in journalism. Our duty is to inform people. 2 years into a war that's reshaping the entire world, most Americans are not informed. They have no real idea what's happening in this region, here in Russia or 600 miles away in Ukraine, but they should know. They're paying for much of it in ways they might not fully yet perceive.
The war in Ukraine is a human disaster. It's left 100 of 1000 of people dead, in entire generation of young Ukrainians, and it's depopulated the largest country in Europe. But the long term effects are even more profound. This war has utterly reshaped the global military and trade alliances, and the sanctions that followed have as well. And in total, they have upended the world economy.
The post World War 2 economic order, the system that guaranteed prosperity in the west for more than 80 years is coming apart very fast, and along with it, the dominance of the US dollar. These are not small changes, they are history altering developments. That will define the lives of our grandchildren. Most of the world understands this perfectly well. They can see it.
Ask anyone in Asia or the Middle East what the future looks like. And yet the populations of the English speaking countries seem mostly unaware. They think that is nothing has really changed, and they think that because no one has told them the truth. Their media outlets are corrupt. They lie to their readers and viewers, and they do that mostly by omission.
For example, since the day the war in Ukraine began, American media outlets have spoken to scores of people from Ukraine, and they have done scores of interviews with Ukrainian president Zelensky. We ourselves have put in a request for an interview with Zelensky. We hope he accepts, but the interviews he's already done in the United States are not traditional interviews. They are fawning pep sessions, specifically designed to amplify Zalenskiy's demand that the US enter more deeply into a war in Eastern Europe, and pay for it. That is not journalism.
It is government propaganda. Propaganda of the ugliest kind, the kind that kills people. At the same time, our politicians and media outlets have been doing this, promoting a foreign leader like he's a new consumer brand. Not a single Western journalist has bothered to interview the president of the other country involved in this conflict, Vladimir Putin. Most Americans have no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine, or what his goals are now.
They've never heard his voice. That's wrong. Americans have a right to know all they can about a war they're implicated in, and we have the right to tell them about it, because we are Americans too. Freedom of speech is our birthright. We were born with the right to say what we believe.
That right cannot be taken away no matter who is in the White House, but they're trying anyway. Almost 3 years ago, the Biden administration illegally spied on our text messages and then leaked the contents to their servants in the news media. They did this in order to stop a Putin interview that we were planning. Last month, we're pretty certain they did exactly the same thing once again, but this time we came to Moscow anyway. We are not here because we love Vladimir Putin.
We are here because we love the United States, and we wanted to remain prosperous and free. We paid for this trip ourselves. We took no money from any government or group, nor are we charging people to see the interview. It is not behind a paywall. Anyone can watch the entire thing shot live to tape and unedited on our website, tucker carlson.com.
Elon Musk, his great credit, has promised not to suppress or block this interview once we posted on his platform x, and we're grateful for that. Western governments, by contrast, will certainly do their best to censor this video on other less principle platforms because That's what they do. They were afraid of information they can't control, but you have no reason to be afraid of it. We are not encouraging you to agree with what Putin may say in this interview, but we are urging you to watch it. You should know as much as you can, and then like a free citizen and not a slave.
You can decide for yourself. Thanks.
@karma44921039 - karma
Putin has been warning the world about the US creating biological weapons https://t.co/1qi2XVJqzy
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ukraine is accused of conducting military biological programs near the Russian border. They allegedly experimented with dangerous pathogens like coronavirus, anthrax, cholera, and African pig plague. Russia believes this poses a direct threat to their safety. Ukraine and their US allies have denied these claims, but Russia remains convinced and accuses them of trying to cover up the evidence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Were carrying out military biological programs. They were experimenting with the strains of coronavirus, anthrax, cholera, African pig plague and other deathly lethal pathogens and now they are trying to more puff the evidence of this program, but we have every reason to believe that next to Russia, in Ukraine, next to Russian borders, they were basically creating components for biological weapon and our numerous warrants of that such developments have pose as direct threat to the safety of Russia. They were rejected by Ukraine and by their patrons from the US and they did it in a very brazen way.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Tucker asks Putin about jailed WSJ journalist https://t.co/SjPMutFJBP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The interviewer asks if the speaker will release Evan Gershkovitz, a 32-year-old Wall Street Journal reporter who has been in prison for almost a year. The speaker responds that they have already shown goodwill and cannot release him. The interviewer argues that Gershkovitz is not a spy and suggests it may degrade Russia to exchange him for someone else. The speaker counters that Gershkovitz covertly received classified information and is not just a journalist. They do not rule out his return to his home country and agree that keeping him in prison in Russia is senseless. The interviewer expresses hope that Gershkovitz will be released.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Just gotta ask you one last question and that's about Evan Gershkovitz who's The Wall Street Journal reporter. He's 32 and he's been in prison for almost a year. And I just wanna ask you directly if as a sign of your decency, you'll be willing to release him to us, and we'll bring him back to the United
Speaker 1: We have done so many gestures of goodwill out of decency that I think we have run out of them. We have never seen
Speaker 0: difference is the guy's obviously not a spy. He's a kid. And maybe he was breaking your law in some way, but he's not a super spy and everybody knows that. And he's being held hostage in exchange, which is true. With respect, inspected.
It's true, and everyone knows it's true. So maybe he's in a different category. Maybe it's not fair to ask for, you know, somebody else in exchange for letting him out. Maybe it degrades Russia to do that.
Speaker 1: He was receiving classified confidential information, and he did it covertly. I
Speaker 0: mean, it's a 32 year old. Like, the owner.
Speaker 1: He committed something different. He's not just a journalist. I reiterate he's a journalist who was secretly Complete getting confidential information. I do not rule out that the person you refer to, mister Gershkovits, may return to his motherland. By the end of the day, it does not make any sense to keep him in prison in Russia.
Speaker 0: I hope you let him out.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Putin reveals which world leader crushed the Ukrainian peace treaty. https://t.co/PViTL3kFU1
Video Transcript AI Summary
As of February 2024, Speaker 0 asks if the person in question has the freedom to directly communicate with the speaker or their government to resolve the ongoing issues. Speaker 1 responds that the person considers themselves the head of state and won the elections. They believe that the coup d'etat in 2014 is the main source of power. Despite flaws in the government, the person is recognized as the president by the United States, Europe, and most of the world. Speaker 1 mentions negotiations with Ukraine in Istanbul, where the person was aware and even signed a preliminary document. However, they claim that former British Prime Minister Johnson dissuaded them from signing, leading to a sense of ridicule and sadness.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But do you think at this point, as of February 2024, he has the latitude, the freedom to speak with you or your government directly about putting an end to this, which clearly isn't helping his country or the world. Can he do that, do you think?
Speaker 1: Why not? He considers himself head of state. Family. He won the elections. Although we believe in Russia that the coup d'etat is the primary source of power for everything that happened after 2014.
And in this sense, even today, government is flawed. But he considers himself the president, and he is recognized by the United States, all of Europe and practically the rest of the world in such a capacity. Why not? Again, we negotiated with Ukraine and Istanbul. We agreed.
He was aware of this. He even put his preliminary signature on the document I am telling you about.
Speaker 0: His But
Speaker 1: then he publicly stated to the whole world, we were ready to sign this document, but mister Johnson, his Then the prime minister of British Britain came and dissuaded us from doing this, saying it was better to fight Russia. And we agreed with this proposal. And the his fact that they obeyed the demand or persuasion of mister Johnson, the former prime minister of Great Britain, seems ridiculous and very sad to me. Premium.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
When was the last time Biden and Putin spoke? https://t.co/NcZhKEix71
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 cannot recall the last time they spoke to Joe Biden and dismisses the need to remember everything. They acknowledge that Biden funds the war they are involved in but claims to have spoken to him before a special military operation. Speaker 1 expresses their belief that Biden is making a historic mistake by supporting actions in Ukraine that push Russia away. When asked about Biden's response, Speaker 1 suggests asking him directly as it is not appropriate for them to comment. They confirm that they have not spoken to Biden since before February 2020.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When was the last time you spoke to Joe Biden?
Speaker 1: I cannot remember when I talked to him. I do not remember.
Speaker 0: You don't remember?
Speaker 1: No. Do I have to remember everything? I have my own things to do. We have domestic political affairs.
Speaker 0: Well, he's funding the war that you're fighting, so I would think that would be
Speaker 1: Well, yes. He funds, but I talked to him before the special military operation, of course. And I said to him then, by the way, I believe that you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening Take of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there in Ukraine by pushing Russia away. I told him told him repeatedly, by What
Speaker 0: what did he say?
Speaker 1: Ask him, please. It is easier for you. You are a citizen of the United States. Go and ask him. It is not appropriate for me to comment on our conversation.
Speaker 0: But but but you haven't spoken to him since before February of 2020
Speaker 1: No. We haven't spoken.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Putin's take on religion. https://t.co/uESE8hCNoA
Video Transcript AI Summary
Religion is not about external practices, but rather about what is in the heart. The speaker does not see supernatural forces at work in the world, believing that the development of society follows inherent laws. They mention how nations and empires rise and fall throughout history, using the example of the Roman Empire. However, they note that the current changes happening in the world are occurring at a much faster pace than in ancient times.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As for religion in general, you know, it's not about external manifestations. It's not about going to church every day or banging your head on the floor. It is in the heart. And our culture is so human oriented.
Speaker 1: So do you see the supernatural at work as you Look out across what's happening in the world now. Do you see God at work? Do you ever think to yourself, these are forces that are not human?
Speaker 0: No. To be honest, I don't think so. My opinion is that the development of the world community is in accordance with inherent laws, And those laws are what they are. It's always been this way in the history of mankind. Some nations and countries rose, became stronger and more numerous and then left the international stage losing the status they had accustomed to.
It seems that there has never been anything like the Roman Empire in the history of mankind. Nevertheless, the potential of the barbarians gradually grew as did their population. In general, the barbarians were getting stronger and begun to develop economically, as we would say today. This eventually led to the collapse of the Roman Empire and the regime imposed by the Romans. However, it took 5 centuries for the Roman Empire to fall apart.
The difference with what is happening now It's that all the processes of change are happening at a much faster pace than in Roman times.
@docbrandenburg - Paul Brandenburg
📺 Deutsche Übersetzung (unauthorisiert) des #Putin-Interviews von @TuckerCarlson. https://t.co/yHrcQvs2Qb
@pavyg - Pavvy G
@TuckerCarlson A reminder of what the west used to think of Vladimir Putin before they got worried that he would become a threat to their globalist plans. https://t.co/fAWuVA5M1X
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two speakers, one being former President George W. Bush, express trust in Vladimir Putin, praising his straightforwardness and trustworthiness. Another speaker, possibly Joe Biden, acknowledges Putin's intelligence and their good relationship, stating that Putin kept his word in personal agreements. Another speaker highlights the challenges Putin faces as the President of Russia, including the need for economic restructuring, rebuilding civic society, and overcoming historical legacies in external relations. The transcript ends with a statement expressing confidence in a new level of cooperation between NATO members and Russia.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is this a man that Americans can trust? I looked the man in the eye. I found it to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to, get a sense of his soul.
I wouldn't have invited him to my ranch if I didn't trust him.
Speaker 1: Well, here's Biden 20 years ago praising Vladimir Putin for moving toward democracy.
Speaker 2: I'm close to amazed by how far Putin seems to have come in making throwing his lot with the west. I don't think anybody since Peter the Great has made such a significant, at least Initial move to the west.
Speaker 3: Mister Putin is got he got all he's very smart. You know him better than most people. Yeah. I do. We had a really good blunt relationship.
If you didn't ever renege on a personal agreement he made to you? He did not. So behind closed doors, he could be trusted? He kept his word and all the deals we made.
Speaker 1: We have to understand the scale of the problems that the president of Russia has to deal with, and Unlike any of the problems that any of the rest of us in in the Western world have to deal with. I mean, he's dealing with an economy that needs absolutely fundamental Restructuring, civic society that needs to be rebuilt after the years of of of communism, and external relations that have a whole series Historical legacies that have to be overcome. So I don't think it's surprising that he is and presents himself as A strong leader is a patriotic leader for Russia.
Speaker 0: I am confident that this new level of cooperation between NATO's members and Russia will now change
@GuaroDePuraSepa - Marcial
▶️ La entrevista a Vladimir Putin 🔹 Por Tucker Carlson 📱 Ep. 73 https://t.co/dXobmwuj7Z
Video Transcript AI Summary
The interview with Vladimir Putin primarily discusses the ongoing war in Ukraine, its historical context, and Russia's motivations. Putin emphasizes Russia's historical claims to parts of Ukraine, tracing back to the formation of the Russian state in the 9th century. He argues that NATO's expansion and Western support for Ukraine threaten Russia's security. Despite acknowledging the complexities of the situation, he insists that Russia is open to negotiations, highlighting that the Ukrainian leadership, influenced by Western powers, has refused to engage in dialogue. Putin expresses a belief that the conflict is rooted in a civil war dynamic and asserts that the relationship between Russian and Ukrainian peoples will eventually heal. He also addresses the implications of Western sanctions and the shifting global economic landscape.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The following is an interview with the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, shot February 6, 2024 at about 7 PM in the building behind us, which is of course the Kremlin. The interview as you will see if you watch it is primarily about the war in progress, the war in Ukraine. How it started, what's happening, and most presently how it might end. One note before you watch, at the beginning of the interview we asked the most obvious question which is why did you do this? Did you feel a threat, an imminent physical threat?
And that's your justification. And the answer we got shocked us. Putin went on for a very long time, probably half an hour about the history of Russia going back to the 8th century. And honestly, we thought this was a filibustering technique and found it annoying and interrupted him several times and he responded he was annoyed, by the interruption. But we concluded in the end for what it's worth, that it was not a filibustering technique.
There was no time limit on the interview. We ended it after more than 2 hours. Instead, what you're about to see seemed to us sincere. Whether you agree with it or not. Vladimir Putin believes that Russia has a historic claim to parts of Western Ukraine.
So our opinion would be to view it in that light as a sincere expression of what he thinks. And with that, here it is. Mister president, thank you. On February 22, 2022, you addressed your country in a nationwide address when the conflict in Ukraine started, and you said that you were acting because you had come to the conclusion that the United States, through NATO, might initiate a, quote, surprise attack on our country. And to American ears, that sounds paranoid.
Tell us why you believe the United States might strike Russia out of the blue. How did you conclude that?
Speaker 1: It's not that America, the United States, was going to launch a surprise strike on Russia. I didn't say that. Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?
Speaker 0: Here's the quote. Thank you. It's a formidable series.
Speaker 1: Because your basic education is in history, as far as I understand.
Speaker 0: Yes. Mhmm.
Speaker 1: So if you don't mind, I will take only 30 seconds or one minute to give you a short reference to history for giving you a little historical background.
Speaker 0: Please.
Speaker 1: Let's look where our relationship with Ukraine started from. Where did Ukraine come from? The Russian state started gathering itself as a centralized statehood, and it is considered to be the year of the establishment of the Russian state in 862. When the townspeople of Novgorod invited a Varangian prince, Rurik, from Scandinavia to reign. In 18/62, Russia celebrated the 1 thousandth anniversary of its statehood.
And in Novgorod, there is a memorial dedicated to the 1 thousandth anniversary of the country. In 882, Rurik's successor, prince Oleg, who was actually playing the role of regent at Rurik's young son because Rurik had died by that time, came to Kyiv. He asked the 2 brothers who apparently had once being members of Rurik's squad. So Russia began to develop with 2 centers of power, Kiev and Novgorod. The next very significant date in the history of Russia was 988.
This was the baptism of Russia when prince Vladimir, the great grandson of Rurik, baptized Russia and adopted orthodoxy or Eastern Christianity. From this time, the centralized Russian state begun to strengthen. Why? Because of the single territory, integrated economic ties, one and the same language, and after the baptism 1 and the same language and after
Speaker 0: the baptism of Russia, the same faith
Speaker 1: and rule of the prince. The centralized Russian state began to take shape. Back in the middle ages, prince Yaroslav the wise introduced the order of succession to a throne. But after he passed away, it became complicated for various reasons. The throne was passed not directly from father to eldest son, but from the prince who had passed away to his brother, then to his sons in different lines.
All this led to defragmentation and the end of roofs as a single state. There was nothing special about it. The same was happening then in Europe. But the fragmented Russian state became an easy prey to the empire created earlier by King Ishan. His successors, namely Batu Khan, came to Rus', plundered and ruined nearly all the cities.
The southern part, including Kyiv, by the way, and some other cities simply lost independence, while northern cities preserved some of their sovereignty. They had to pay tribute to the horde, but they managed to preserve some part of their sovereignty. And then a unified Russian state began to take shape with its center in Moscow. The southern part of Russian lands, including Kyiv begun to gradually gravitate towards another magnet, the center that was emerging in Europe. This was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
It was even called the Lithuanian Russian Duchy because Russians were a significant part of this population. They spoke the old Russian language and were orthodox. But then there was a unification, the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland. A few years later, another union was signed, but this time already in the religious sphere. Some of the orthodox priests became subordinate to the pope.
Thus, these lands became part of the Polish Lithuanian state. During decades, the Poles were engaged in colonization of this part of the population. They introduced their language there, tried to entrench the idea that this population was not exactly Russians, that because they lived on the fringe, they were Ukrainians. Originally, the word Ukrainian meant that the person was living on the outskirts of the state along the fringes, or was engaged in a border patrol service. It didn't mean any particular ethnic group.
So the Poles were trying to, in every possible way, to colonize this part of the Russian lands and actually treated it rather harshly, not to say cruelly. All that led to the fact that this part of the Russian lands began to struggle for their rights. They wrote letters to Warsaw demanding that their rights be observed and people be commissioned here, including to Kyiv.
Speaker 0: I beg your pardon? Can you tell us what period I'm losing track of where in history we are. The The Polish oppression of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: It was in the 13th century. Now I will tell you what happened later and give the dates so that there is no confusion. And in 1654, even a bit earlier, The people who were in control of the authority over that part of the Russian lands addressed Warsaw, I repeat, demanding that they send them to rulers of Russian origin and orthodox faith. When Warsaw did not answer them and, in fact, rejected their demands, they turned to Moscow so that Moscow took them away. So that you don't think that I'm inventing things?
I'll give you these documents.
Speaker 0: Well, I I it doesn't sound like you're inventing it. I'm not sure why it's relevant to what happened 2 years ago.
Speaker 1: But still, these are documents from the archives, copies. Here are the letters from Bogdan Khmelnytsky, The man who then controlled the power in this part of the Russian lands that is now called Ukraine. He wrote to Warsaw demanding that their rights be upheld. And after being refused, he began to write letters to Moscow, asking to take them under the strong hand of the Moscow tsar. There are copies of these documents.
I will leave them for your good memory. There is a translation into Russian. You can translate it into English later. Russia would not agree to admit them straight away, assuming that the war with Poland would start. Nevertheless, in 16/54, the pan Russian assembly of top clergy and landowners headed by the tsar, which was the representative body of the power of the old Russian state, decided to include a part of the old Russian lands into Moscow Kingdom.
As expected, the war with Poland began. It lasted 13 years, and then in 16/54, a truce was concluded. And 32 years later, I think, a peace treaty with Poland, which they called eternal peace, was signed. And these lands, the whole left bank of Dnieper, including Kyiv, went to Russia. And the whole right bank of Dnieper remained in Poland.
Under the rule of Katherina the Great, Russia reclaimed all of its historical lands, including in the south and west. This all lasted until the revolution. Before World War 1, Austrian general staff relied on the ideas of Ukrainianization and started actively promoting the ideas of Ukraine and the Ukrainianization. Their motive was obvious. Just before World War 1, they wanted to weaken the potential enemy and secure themselves favorable conditions in the border area.
So the idea which had emerged in Poland that people residing in that territory were allegedly not really Russians, but rather belong to a special ethnic group, Ukrainians, started being propagated by the Austrian general staff. As far back as the 19th century, theorists calling for Ukrainian independence appeared. All those, however, claimed that Ukraine should have a very good relationship with Russia. They insisted on that. After the 1917 revolution the Bolsheviks sought to restore the statehood, and the civil war began, including the hostilities with Poland.
In 1921, peace with Poland was proclaimed. And under that treaty, the right bank of Dnieper River once again was given back to Poland. In 1939, after Poland cooperated with Hitler, he did collaborate with Hitler. You know? Hitler offered Poland peace and a treaty of friendship.
Speaker 0: An
Speaker 1: alliance demanding in return that Poland give back to Germany the so called Dansig car door, which connected the bulk of Germany with East Prussia and Konigsberg. After World War 1, this territory was transferred to Poland. And instead of Danzig, a city of Danske emerged. Hitler asked them to give it amicably, but they refused. Of course, Still, they collaborated with Hitler and engaged together in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia.
Speaker 0: But may may I ask you, you're making the case that that Ukraine, certainly parts of Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine is, in effect, Russia has been for 100 of years. Why wouldn't you just take it when you became president 24 years ago? You have nuclear weapons. They don't. If it's actually your land, why did you wait so long?
Speaker 1: I'll tell you. I'm coming to that. This briefing is coming to an end. It might be boring, but it explains many things.
Speaker 0: We just don't know how it's relevant.
Speaker 1: Good. Good. I'm so gratified that you appreciate that. Thank you. So before World War 2, Poland collaborated with Hitler.
And although it did not yield to Hitler's demands, it still participated in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler. As the Poles had not given the dancing corridor to Germany and went so far, pushing Hitler to start World War 2 by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom the war started on 1st September 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland. By the way, the USSR, I have read some archive documents, behaved very honestly.
It asked Poland's permission to transit its troops through the Polish territory to help Czechoslovakia. But the then Polish foreign minister said that if the Soviet plans flew over Poland, they would be down over the territory of Poland. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that the war began, And Poland fell prey to the policies it had pursued against Czechoslovakia. It's under the well known Molotov Ribbentrop pact.
Part of the territory, including Western Ukraine, was to be given to Russia. Thus, Russia, which was then named as USSR, regained its historical lands after the victory in the great Patriotic War, as we call World War All those territories will ultimately enshrine this belonging to Russia to the USSR. As for Poland, it received, apparently, in compensation, the lands which had originally been German. The eastern parts of Germany, these are now western lands of Poland. Of course, Poland regained access to the Baltic Sea and Danzig which was once again given its Polish name.
So this was how this situation developed. In 1922, when the USSR was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before. Stalin insisted that those republics be included in the USSR as autonomous entities. For some inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR. And, again, for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the lands together with people living there.
Even though those lands had never been called Ukraine, and yet they were made part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine. Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever. Even if we go as far back as 1654, when these lands returned to Russian Empire, that territory was the size of 3 to 4 regions of modern Ukraine with no Black Sea region. That was completely out of the question.
Speaker 0: In 1654.
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 0: What I'm just I you obviously have encyclopedic knowledge of this region, but why didn't you make this case for the 1st 22 years as president that Ukraine wasn't a real country?
Speaker 1: The Soviet Union was given a great deal of territory that had never belonged to it, including the Black Sea region. At some point, when Russia received them as an outcome of the Russo Turkish wars, they were called new Russia or. But that does not matter. What matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, established Ukraine that way. For decades, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR.
And for unknown reasons again, the Bolsheviks were engaged in Ukrainianization. It was not merely because the Soviet leadership was composed to a great extent of those originating from Ukraine. Rather, it was explained by the general policy of indigenization pursued by the Soviet Union. Same things were done in other Soviet Republics. This involved promoting national languages and national cultures, which is not a bad in principle.
That is how the Soviet Ukraine was created. After the World War 2, Ukraine received, in addition to the lands that had belonged to Poland before the war, part of the lands that had previously belonged to Hungary and Romania. So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the Soviet Ukraine, and they still remain part of Ukraine. So in this sense, we have every reason to affirm that Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin's will.
Speaker 0: Do you believe Hungary has a right to take its land back from Ukraine and that other nations have a right to go back to their 1654 borders?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure whether they should go back to the 1654 borders. But given Stalin's time, so called Stalin's regime, which as many claim saw numerous violations of human rights and violations of the rights of other states One may say that they could claim back those lands of theirs while having no right to do that. It is at least understandable.
Speaker 0: Have you told Viktor Orban that he can have part of Ukraine?
Speaker 1: Never. I have never told him. Not a single time. We have not even had any conversation on that, but I actually know for sure that Hungarians who live there wanted to get back to their historical land. Moreover, I would like to share a very interesting story with you.
I digress. It's a personal one. Somewhere in the early eighties, I went on a road trip in a car from then Leningrad across the Soviet Union through Kyiv. Made a stop in Kyiv, and then went to Western Ukraine. I went to the town of.
And all the names of towns and villages there were in Russian and in the language I did not understand, in Hungarian, in Russian and in Hungarian. Not in Ukrainian, in Russian and in Hungarian. I was driving through some kind of village, and there were men sitting next to the houses. And they were wearing black 3 piece suits and black cylinder hats. I asked, are they some kind of entertainers?
I was told, no. They were not entertainers. They're Hungarians. I said, what are they doing here? What do you mean?
This is their land. They live here. This was during the Soviet time in the 19 eighties. They preserved the Hungarian language, Hungarian names, and all their national costumes. They are Hungarians, and they feel themselves to be Hungarians.
And, of course, when now there is an infringement
Speaker 0: Well, that that is there's a lot of that, though. I think many nations are upset about Transylvania as well, as you obviously know. But many nations feel frustrated by the redrawn borders of the wars of the 20th century and wars going back a 1000 years, the ones that you mentioned. But the fact is that you didn't make this case in public until 2 years ago, February, and in the case that you made, which I read today Just a question. You you explained at great length that you felt a physical threat from the west in NATO, including potentially a nuclear threat, and that's what got you to move.
Is that a fair characterization of what you said?
Speaker 1: I understand that my long speeches probably fall outside of the genre of the interview. That is why I asked you at the beginning, are we going to have a serious talk or a show? You said a serious talk. So bear with me, please. We're coming to the point where the Soviet Ukraine was established.
Then in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. And everything that Russia had generously bestowed on Ukraine was dragged away by the ladder. I'm coming to a very important point of today's agenda. Thank you. After all, the collapse of the Soviet Union was effectively initiated by the Russian leadership.
I do not understand what the Russian leadership was guided by at the time, But I suspect there were several reasons to think everything would be fine. 1st, I think that then Russian Family ties. Every third person there had some kind of family or friendship ties. Common culture. Common history.
Finally, common faith. Coexistence with a single state for centuries. And deeply interconnected economies. All of these were so fundamental. All these elements together make our good relationships inevitable.
The second point is a very important one. I want you as an American citizen and your viewers to hear about this as well. The former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist, and therefore, there were no longer any ideological dividing lines. Russia even agreed voluntarily and proactively to the collapse of the Soviet Union and believed that this would be understood by the so called civilized west as an invitation for cooperation and association. That is what Russia was expecting, both from the United States and the so called collective West as a whole.
There were smart people, including in Germany, Egon Barr, a major politician of the Social Democratic Party, who insisted in his personal conversations with the Soviet leadership on the brink of the collapse of the Soviet Union that a new security system should be established in Europe. Help should be given to unify Germany, but a new system should be also established to include the United States, Canada, Russia, and other Central European countries. Yes. But NATO needs not to expand. That's what he said.
If NATO expands, everything would be just the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia's borders. That's all. He was a wise old man, but no one listened to him. In fact, he got angry once. If he said you don't listen to me, I'm never setting my foot in Moscow once again.
Everything happened just as he had said.
Speaker 0: It will of course, it did come true, and I and you've mentioned this many times. I think it's a fair point. And many in America thought Yeah. That relations between Russia and the United States would be fine with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, that the opposite happened. But you've never explained why you think that happened except to say that the west fears a strong Russia, but we have a strong China the west does not seem very afraid of.
What about Russia do you think convinced policymakers they had to take it down?
Speaker 1: The West is afraid of strong China more than it fears a strong Russia because Russia has 150,000,000 people, and China has 1,500,000,000 population, and its economy is growing by leaps and bounds, or 5% a year. It used to be even more. But that's enough for China. As Bismarck once put it, potentials are the most important. China's potential is enormous.
It is the biggest economy in the world today in terms of purchasing power parity and the size of the economy. It has already overtaken the United States quite a long time ago, and it is growing at a rapid clip. Let's not talk about who is afraid of whom. Let's not reason in such terms. And let's get into the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of civilized nations.
Nothing like this happened. You tricked us. I don't mean you personally when I say you. Of course, I'm talking about the United States. The promise was that NATO would not expand eastward, but it happened five times.
There were 5 waves of expansion. We tolerated all that. We were trying to persuade them. We were saying, please don't. We are as bourgeois now as you are.
We are market economy, and there is no Communist Party power. Let's negotiate. Moreover, I have also said this publicly before. There was a moment when a certain rift started growing between Before that, Yeltsin came to the United States. Remember, he spoke in congress and said the good words, God bless America.
Everything he said were signals. Let us in. Remember the developments in Yugoslavia before the Yeltsin was lavished with praise? As soon as the developments in Yugoslavia started, he raised his voice in support of Serbs, and we couldn't but raise our voices for Serbs in their defense. I understand that there were complex processes on the way there.
I do. But Russia could not help raising its voice in support of Serbs because Serbs are also a special and close to us nation with orthodox culture and so on. It's a nation that has suffered so much for generations. Well, regardless, what is important is that Yeltsin expressed his support. What did the United States do?
In violation of an international law and the UN Charter, it started bombing Belgrade. It was the United States that led the genie out of the bottom. Moreover, when Russia protested and expressed its resentment, what was said, the UN Charter and international law have become obsolete. Now everyone invokes international law, but at that time, they started Now everyone involves international law. But at that time, they
Speaker 0: started saying that everything was outdated.
Speaker 1: Everything had to be changed. Indeed, some things need to be changed as the balance of power has changed. It's true. But not in this manner. Yeltsin was immediately dragged through the mud, accused of alcoholism, of understanding nothing, of knowing nothing.
He understood everything. I assure you. Well, I became president in 2000. I thought, okay, the Yugoslav issue is over, but we should try to restore relations. Let's reopen the door that Russia had tried to go through.
And moreover, I said it publicly. I can't reiterate. At a meeting here in the Kremlin with the outgoing president, Bill Clinton, right here in the next room, I said to him I asked him, Bill, do you think if Russia asked to join NATO, do you think it would happen? Suddenly, he said, you know, it's interesting. I think so.
But in the evening, when we met for dinner, he said, you know, I've talked to my team. No. No. It's not possible now. You can ask him.
I think he will watch our interview. He'll confirm it. I wouldn't have said anything like that if it hadn't happened. Okay. Were
Speaker 0: you sincere?
Speaker 1: Possible now?
Speaker 0: Would you have joined NATO?
Speaker 1: Look. I asked the question, is it possible or not? And the answer I got was no. If I was insincere in my desire to find out what the leadership position was
Speaker 0: But if he had said yes, would you have joined NATO?
Speaker 1: If he had said yes, the process of reproachment would have commenced. And eventually, it might have happened if we had seen some sincere wish on the other side of our partners. But it didn't happen. Well, no means no. Okay.
Fine.
Speaker 0: Why do you think that is? Just to get to motive. I know you're clearly bitter about it. I understand. But why do you think the west rebuffed you then?
Why the hostility? Why did the end of the Cold War not fix the relationship? What motivates this from your point of view?
Speaker 1: You said I was bitter about the answer. No. It's not bitterness. It's just a statement of fact. We're not bride and groom, bitterness, resentment.
It's not about those kind of matters in such circumstances. We just realized we weren't welcome there. That's all. Okay. Fine.
But let's build relations in another manner. Let's look for common ground elsewhere. Why we received such a negative response, you should ask your leaders. I can only guess why. Too big a country with its own opinion and so on.
And the United States, I've seen how issues are being resolved in NATO. I will give you another example now concerning Ukraine. The US leadership exerts pressure, and all NATO members obediently vote even if they do not like something. Now I'll tell you what happened in this regard with Ukraine in 2008, although it's being discussed. I'm not going to open a secret to you, say anything new.
Nevertheless, after that, we tried to build relations in different ways. For example, the events in the Middle East, in Iraq, we were building relations with the United States in a very soft, prudent, cautious manner. I repeatedly raised the issue that the United even military support came from the United States and its satellites for terrorist groups in the caucuses. I once raised this issue with my colleague, also the president of the United States. He says, it's impossible.
Do you have proof? I said, yes. I was prepared for this conversation, and I gave him that proof. He looked at it, and you know what he said? I apologize, but that's what happened.
I'll quote. He says, well, I'm gonna kick their ass. We waited and waited for some response. There was no reply. I said to the FSB director, write to the CIA, what is the result of the conversation with president?
He wrote once, twice, and then we got a reply. We have the answer in the archive. The CIA replied, we have been working with the opposition in Russia. We believe that this is the right thing to do, and we will keep on doing it. Just ridiculous.
Well, okay. We realized that it was out of the question.
Speaker 0: Forces in opposition to you. So you're saying the CA is trying to overthrow your government.
Speaker 1: Of course, they meant in that particular case, the separatists, the terrorists who fought with us in the caucuses. That's who they called the opposition. This is the second point. The third moment is a very important one. It's the moment when the US missile defense system was created.
The beginning. We persuaded for a long time not to do it in United States. Moreover, After I was invited by Bush junior's father, Bush senior, to visit his place on the ocean, I had a very serious conversation with president Bush and his team. I propose that the United States, Russia, and Europe jointly create a missile defense system that we believe, if created unilaterally, threatens our security despite the fact that the United States officially said that it was being created against missile threats from Iran. That was the justification for the deployment of the missile defense system.
I suggested working together, Russia, the United States, and Europe. They said it was very interesting. They asked me, are you serious? I said, absolutely.
Speaker 0: May I ask what year was this?
Speaker 1: I don't remember. It is easy to find out on the Internet when I was in the USA at the invitation of a Bush senior. It is even easier to learn from someone I'm going to tell you about. I was told it was very interesting. I said, just imagine if we could tackle such a global strategic security challenge together.
The world will change. We'll probably have disputes, probably economic and even political ones, but we could drastically change the situation in the world. He says yes and asks, are you serious? I said, of course. We need to think about it.
I'm so I said, go ahead, please. Then Secretary of Defense Gates, former director of CIA and Secretary of State Rice came in here, in this cabinet, right here at this table. They sat on this table. Me, the foreign minister, the Russian defense minister on that side. Mister Arburo They said to me, Yes.
We have thought about it. We agree. I said, thank god. Great. No.
But with some exceptions.
Speaker 0: So twice you've described US presidents making decisions and then being undercut by their agency heads. So it sounds like you're describing a system that's not run by the people who are elected in your telling.
Speaker 1: That's right. That's right. In the end, they just told us to get lost. I'm not going to tell you the details because I think it's incorrect. After all, it was confidential conversation.
But our proposal was declined. That's a fact. It was right then when I said, look. But then we will be forced to take countermeasures. We will create such strike systems that will certainly overcome missile defense systems.
The answer was, we are not doing this against you, and you do what you want, assuming that it is not against us, not against the United States. I said, okay. Very well. That's the way it went. And we created hypersonic systems with intercontinental range, and we continue to develop them.
We are now ahead of everyone, the United States and the other countries, in terms of the development of hypersonic strike systems, and we are improving them every day. But it wasn't us. We proposed to go the other way, and we were pushed back. Now about NATO's expansion to the East. Well, we were promised no NATO to the east, not an inch to the east as we were told.
And then what? They said, well, it's not enshrined on paper, so we'll expand. So there were 5 waves of expansion. The Baltic states, the whole of Eastern Europe, and so on. And now I come to the main thing.
They have come to the Ukraine ultimately. In 2,008, at the summit in Bucharest, they declared that the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO were open. Now about how decisions are made there. Germany, France seem to be against it as well as some other European countries. But then, as it turned out, later, president Bush, and he's such a tough guy, a tough politician, as I was told later, he exerted pressure on us, and we had to agree.
It's ridiculous. It's like kindergarten. Where are the guarantees? What kindergarten is this? What kind of people are these?
Who are they? You see, they were pressed. They agreed. And then they say, Ukraine won't be in the NATO, you know? I say, I don't know.
I know you agreed in 2,008. Why won't you agree in the future? Well, they pressed us then. I say, why won't they press you tomorrow? And you'll agree again.
Well, it's nonsensical. Who's there to talk to? I just don't understand. We're ready to talk. But with who?
Where are the guarantees? None. So they started to develop the territory of Ukraine. Whatever is there, I have told you the background, how this territory developed, what kind of relations they were with Russia. Every second or third person there has always had some ties with Russia.
And during the elections, in already independent sovereign Ukraine, which gained its independence as a result of the declaration of independence, And by the way, it says that Ukraine is a neutral state. And in 2,008, suddenly, the doors or gates to NATO were open to it. Oh, come on. This is not how we agreed. Now all the presidents that have come to power in Ukraine, they relied on electorate with a good attitude to Russia in one way or the other.
This is the southeast of Ukraine. This is a large number of people. And it was very difficult to dissuade this electorate, which had a positive attitude towards Russia. Viktor Yanukovych came to power and how? The first time he won after president Kuchma, they organized the 3rd round, which is not provided for in the constitution of Ukraine.
This is a coup d'etat. Just imagine someone in the United States wouldn't like the outcome.
Speaker 0: In 2014.
Speaker 1: Before that. No. This was before that, after president Kuchma, Viktor Yanukovych won the elections. However, his opponents did not recognize that victory. The US supported the opposition, and the 3rd round was scheduled.
What is this? This is a coup. The US supported it, and the winner of the 3rd round came to power. Imagine if in the US something was not to someone's liking and the 3rd round of election, which the US constitution does not provide for, was organized. Nonetheless, it was done in Ukraine.
Okay. Viktor Yushchenko, who was considered a pro western politician, came to power. Fine. We have built relations with him as well. He came to Moscow with visits.
We visited Kyiv. I visited too. We met in an informal setting. If he's pro western, so be it. It's fine.
Let people do their job. The situation should have developed inside independent Ukraine itself. As a result of Kuchma's leadership, things got worse, and Viktor Yanukovych Yanukovych came to power after all. Maybe he wasn't the best president and politician. I don't know.
I don't want to give assessments. However, the issue of the association with the EU came up. We have always been leaning to this, suit yourself. But when we read through the Treaty of Association, it turned out to be a problem for us since we had a free trade zone and open customs borders with Ukraine, which under this association had to open its borders for Europe, which could have led to flooding of our market. We said, no.
This is not going to work. We shall close our borders with Ukraine then. The customs borders that is. Yanukovych started to calculate how much Ukraine was going to gain, how much to lose, and said to his European partners, I need more time to think before signing. The moment he said that, the opposition began to take destructive steps which were supported by the West.
It all came down to Maidan and a coup in Ukraine.
Speaker 0: So he did more trade with Russia than with the EU? Ukraine did?
Speaker 1: Of course. It's not even the matter of trade volume, although for the most part, it is. It is the matter of cooperation size, which the entire Ukrainian economy was based on. The cooperation size between the enterprises were very close since the times of the Soviet Union. One enterprise there used to produce components to be assembled both in Russia and Ukraine and vice versa.
They used to be very close ties. A coup that was committed, although I shall not delve into details now as I find doing it inappropriate. The US told us. Calm Yanukovych down, and we will calm the opposition. Let the situation unfold in the scenario of a political settlement.
We said, alright. Agreed. Let's do it this way. As the Americans requested, Yanukovych did use neither the armed forces nor the police, yet the armed opposition committed a coup in Kiev. What is that supposed to mean?
Who do you think you are? I wanted to ask the then US leadership.
Speaker 0: With the backing of whom?
Speaker 1: With the backing of CIA, of course. The organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand. We should thank God they didn't let you in. Although, it is a serious organization. I understand.
My former vis a vis in the sense that I served in the first main directorate, Soviet Union's intelligence service. They have always been our opponents. A job is a job. Technically, they did everything right. They achieved their goal of changing the government.
However, from political standpoint, it was a colossal mistake. Surely, it was political leadership's miscalculation. They should have seen what it would evolve into. So in 2,008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 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. How could we not express concern over what was happening? From our side, this would have been a culpable negligence.
That's what it would have been. It's just that the US political leadership pushed us to the line we could not cross because doing so could have ruined Russia itself. Besides, we could not leave our brothers in faith, in fact, a part of Russian people in the face of this war machine.
Speaker 0: What was the so but that was 8 years before the current conflict started. So what was the trigger for you? What was the moment where you decided you had to do this?
Speaker 1: Initially, it was the coup in Ukraine that provoked the conflict. By the way, back then, the representatives of 3 European countries, Germany, Poland, and France, arrived. They were the guarantors of the signed agreement between the government of Yanukovych and the opposition. They signed it as guarantors. Despite that, the opposition committed a coup, and all these countries pretended that they didn't remember that they were guarantors of the peaceful settlement.
They just threw it in the stow right away, and nobody recalls that. I don't know if the US know anything about the agreement between the opposition and the authorities. And it's 3 guarantors who, instead of bringing this whole situation back in the political field, supported the coup. Although, it was meaningless, believe me. Because president Yanukovych agreed to all conditions.
He was ready to hold an early election, which he had no chance of winning, frankly speaking. Everyone knew that. Then why the coup? Why the victims? Why threatening Crimea?
Why launching an operation in Donbas? This I do not understand. That is exactly what the miscalculation is. CIA did its job to complete the coup. I think one of the deputy secretaries of state said that it cost a large sum of money, almost 5,000,000,000.
But the political mistake was colossal. Why would they have to do that? All this could have been done legally without victims, without military action, without losing Crimea. We would have never considered to even lift a finger if it hadn't been for the bloody developments on Maidan. Because we agreed with the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, our borders should be along the borders of former Union's republics.
We agreed to that. But we never agreed to NATO's expansion. And moreover, we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO. We did not agree to NATO basis there without any discussion with us. For decades, we kept asking, don't do this, don't do that.
And what triggered the latest events? Firstly, the current Ukrainian leadership declared that it would not implement the Minsk agreements, which had been signed, as you know, after the events of 2014 in Minsk, where the plan of peaceful settlement in Donbas was set forth. But now the current Ukrainian leadership, foreign minister, all other officials, and then president himself said that they don't like anything about the Minsk agreements. In other words, they were not going to implement it. A year or a year and a half ago, former leaders of Germany and France said openly to the whole world that they indeed signed the Minsk agreements, but they never intended to implement them.
They simply led us by the nose.
Speaker 0: Was there anyone free to talk to? Did you call a US president, secretary of state, and say if you keep militarizing Ukraine with NATO forces, this is gonna get this is gonna be a we're gonna act.
Speaker 1: We talked about this all the time. We addressed the United States and European countries' leadership to stop these developments immediately, so implement the Minsk agreements. Frankly speaking, I didn't know how we were going to do this, but I was ready to implement them. These agreements were complicated for Ukraine. They included lots of elements of those Donbas territories' independence.
That's true. However, I was absolutely confident, and I'm saying this to you now. I honestly believe that if we managed to convince the residents of Donbas and we had to work hard to convince them to return to the Ukrainian statehood, Then gradually, the wounds would start to heal. When this part of territory reintegrated itself into common social environment, when the pensions, social benefits were paid again, all the pieces would gradually fall into place. No.
Nobody wanted that. Everybody wanted to resolve the issue by military force only, but we could not let that happen. And the situation got to the the point when the Ukrainian side announced, no. We will not do anything. They also started preparing for military action.
It was they who started the war in 2014. Our goal is to stop this war, and we did not start this war in 2022. This is an attempt to stop it.
Speaker 0: Do you think you've stopped it now? I mean, have you achieved your aims?
Speaker 1: No. We haven't achieved our aims yet because one of them is the Nazification. This means the prohibition of all kinds of neo Nazi movements. This is one of the problems that we discussed during the negotiation process, which ended in Istanbul early this year. And it was not our initiative because we were told by the Europeans, in particular, that it was necessary to create conditions for the final signing of the documents.
My counterparts in France and Germany said how can you imagine them signing a treaty with a gun to their heads? The troops should be pulled back from Kyiv. I said, alright. We withdrew the troops from Kyiv. As soon as we pulled back our troops from Kyiv, our Ukrainian negotiators immediately threw all our agreements reached in Istanbul into the bin and got prepared for a long standing armed confrontation with the help of the United States and its satellites in Europe.
That is how the situation has developed, and that is how it looks now.
Speaker 0: But what is pardon my English. What is denazification? What would that mean?
Speaker 1: That is what I want to talk about right now. It is a very important issue. After gaining independence, Ukraine began to search, as some Western analysts say, its identity. And it came up with nothing better than to build this identity upon some false heroes who collaborated with Hitler. I have already said that in the early 19th century, when the theorists of independence and sovereignty of Ukraine appeared, they assumed that an independent Ukraine should have very good relations with Russia.
But due to the historical development, those territories were part of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. Poland, where Ukrainians were persecuted and treated quite brutally as well as were subject to cruel behavior. There were also attempts to destroy their identity. All this remained in the memory of the people. When World War 2 broke out, part of this extremely nationalist elite collaborated with Hitler, believing that he would bring them freedom.
The German troops, even the SS troops made Hitler's collaborators do the dirtiest work of exterminating the Polish and Jewish population. Hence, this brutal massacre of the Polish and Jewish population as well as the Russian population too. This was led by the persons who are well known, Bandera, Shekevich. It was those people who were made national heroes. That is the problem.
And we are constantly told that nationalism and Neo Nazism exist in other countries as well. Yes. They are seedlings, but exist in other countries as well. Yes. There are seedlings, but we uproot them.
And other countries fight against them. But Ukraine is not the case. These people have been made into national heroes in Ukraine. Monuments to those people have been erected. They are displayed on flags.
Their names are shouted by crowds that walk with torches as it was in Nazi Germany. These were people who exterminated Poles, Jews, and Russians. It is necessary to stop this practice and prevent the dissemination of this concept. I say that Ukrainians are part of the one Russian people. They say, no, we are a separate people.
Okay. Fine. If they consider themselves a separate people, they have the right to do so, but not on the basis of Nazism, the Nazi ideology.
Speaker 0: Would you be satisfied with the territory that you have now?
Speaker 1: We will finish answering the question. You just asked a question about Neo Nazism and denazification. Look. The president of Ukraine visited Canada. The story is well known, but being silenced in the western countries.
Speaker 0: Speaker parliament
Speaker 1: The Canadian parliament introduced a man who, as the speaker of the parliament said, fought against the Russians during the World War 2. Well, who fought against the Russians during the World War 2? Hitler and his accomplices. It turned out that this man served in the SS troops. He personally killed Russian Poles and Jews.
The SS troops consisted of Ukrainian nationalists who did this dirty work. The president of Ukraine stood up with the entire parliament of Canada and applauded this man. How can this be imagined? The president of Ukraine himself, by the way, is a Jew by nationality.
Speaker 0: Really, my question is what do you do about it? I mean, Hitler's been dead for 80 years. Nazi Germany no longer exists. And so true. And so I think what you're saying is you want to extinguish or at least control Ukrainian nationalism, but how?
How do you do that?
Speaker 1: Listen to me. Your question is very subtle, and I can tell you what I think. Do not take offense.
Speaker 0: Of course.
Speaker 1: This question appears to be subtle. It is quite pesky. You say Hitler has been dead for so many years, 80 years. But his example lives on. People who exterminated Jews, Russians, and Poles are alive.
And the president, the current president of today's Ukraine applauds him in the Canadian parliament, gives a standing ovation. Can we say that we have completely uprooted this ideology if what we see is happening today? That is what the Nazification is in our understanding. We have to get rid of those people who maintain this concept and support this practice and try to preserve it. That is what denazification is.
That is what we mean.
Speaker 0: Right. My question is a little more specific. It was, of course, not a defense of Nazis, neo, or otherwise. It was a practical question. You don't control the entire country.
You don't control Kyiv. You don't seem like you want to. So how how do you eliminate a culture or an ideology or feelings or view of history in a country that you don't control? What do you do about that?
Speaker 1: You know, strange as it may seem to you, during the negotiations at Istanbul, we did agree that we have it all in writing. Neo Nazism would not be cultivated in Ukraine, including that it would be prohibited at the legislative level. Mister Carson, we agreed on that. This, it turns out, can be done during the negotiation process. And there's nothing humiliating for Ukraine as a modern civilized state.
Is any state allowed to promote Nazism? It is not, is it? That is it.
Speaker 0: Will there be talks and why haven't there been talks about resolving the conflict in Ukraine, peace talks?
Speaker 1: There have been. They reached a very high stage of coordination of positions in a complex process. But still, they were almost finalized. But after we withdrew our troops from Kyiv, as I have already said, the other side threw away all these agreements and obeyed the instructions of Western countries, European countries, and the United States to fight Russia to the bitter end. Moreover, the president, Ukraine, has
Speaker 0: Moreover,
Speaker 1: the president of Ukraine has legislated a ban on
Speaker 0: negotiating with Russia.
Speaker 1: He signed a decree forbidding everyone to negotiate with Russia. But how are we going to negotiate if he forbid himself and everyone to do this? We know that he is putting forward some ideas about this settlement. But in order to agree on something, we need to have a dialogue. Is that not right?
Speaker 0: Well, but you wouldn't be speaking to the Ukrainian president. You'd be speaking to the American president. When was the last time you spoke to Joe Biden?
Speaker 1: I cannot remember when I talked to him. I do not remember. We can look it up.
Speaker 0: You don't remember?
Speaker 1: No. Why? Do I have to remember everything? I have my own things to do. We have domestic political affairs.
Speaker 0: Well, he's funding the war that you're fighting, so I would think that would be memorable.
Speaker 1: Well, yes. He funds, but I talked to him before the Well, yes, he funds, but I talked to him before the special military operation, of course. And I said to him then, by the way, I will not go into details. I never do. But I said to him then, I believe that you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there in Ukraine by pushing Russia away.
I told him told him repeatedly, by the way. I think that would be correct if I stop here. What did he say? Ask him, please. It is easier for you.
You are a citizen of the United States. Go and ask him. It is not appropriate for me to comment on our conversation.
Speaker 0: But but but you haven't spoken to him since before February of 2022? No.
Speaker 1: We haven't spoken. Certain contacts are being maintained, though. Speaking of which, do you remember what I told you about my proposal to work together on a missile defense system?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You can ask all of them. All of them are safe and sound, thank God. The former President, Candeliza, is safe and sound. And I think Mr. Gates and the current director of the intelligence agency, Mr.
Burns, the then ambassador to Russia, in my opinion, are very successful ambassador. They were all witnesses to these conversations. Ask them. Same here. If you are interested in what mister president Biden responded to me, ask him.
At any rate, I talked to him about it.
Speaker 0: I'm I'm I'm definitely interested. But from the outside, it seems like this could devolve or evolve into something that brings the entire world into conflict and could, initiate some a nuclear launch. And so why don't you just call Biden and say, let's work this out?
Speaker 1: What's there to work out? It's very simple. I repeat. We have contacts through various agencies. I will tell you what we are saying on this matter and what we are conveying to the US leadership.
If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks. That's it. And then we can agree on some terms. Before you do that, stop.
What's easier? Why would I call him? What should I talk to him about? Or beg him for what?
Speaker 0: And and what message did you get back? State.
Speaker 1: You're going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine. Oh, I'm afraid. I'm afraid. Please don't. What is there to talk about?
Speaker 0: Do you think NATO is worried about this becoming a global war or a nuclear conflict?
Speaker 1: At least that's what they're talking about, and they're trying to intimidate their own population with an imaginary Russian threat. This is an obvious fact. And thinking people, not Philistines, but thinking people, analysts, those who are engaged in real politics, just smart people understand perfectly well that this is a fake. They're trying to fuel the Russian threat.
Speaker 0: The threat I think you're referring to is a Russian invasion of Poland, Latvia expansionist behavior. Is can you imagine a scenario where you sent Russian troops to Poland?
Speaker 1: Only in one case, if Poland attacks Russia. Why? Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia, or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don't have any interest.
It's just threat mongering.
Speaker 0: Well, the argument, I know you know this, is that, well, he invaded Ukraine. He has territorial aims across the continent, and you're saying unequivocally you don't.
Speaker 1: It is absolutely out of the question. You just don't have to be any kind of analyst. It goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of a global war. And a global war will bring all humanity to the brink of destruction. It's obvious.
There are certainly means of deterrence. They have been scaring everyone with us all along. Tomorrow, Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons. Tomorrow, Russia will use that. Russian No.
The day after tomorrow. So what? In order to extort additional money from US taxpayers and European taxpayers in the confrontation with Russia in the Ukrainian theater of war. The goal is to weaken Russia as much as possible. What
Speaker 0: one of, our senior United States senators from the state of New York, Chuck Schumer, said yesterday, I believe, that we have to continue to fund the Ukrainian effort or US soldiers, citizens, could wind up fighting there. How do you assess that?
Speaker 1: This is a provocation and a cheap provocation at that. I do not understand why American soldiers should fight in Ukraine. There are mercenaries from the United States there. The bigger number of mercenaries comes from Poland with mercenaries from the United States in 2nd place and mercenaries from Georgia in 3rd place. Well, if somebody has the desire to send regular troops, that would certainly bring humanity to the brink of very serious global conflict.
This is obvious. Do the United States need this? What for? Thousands of miles away from your national territory. Don't you have anything better to do?
You have issues on the border, issues with migration, issues with the national debt, more than $33,000,000,000,000 You have nothing better to do, so you should fight in Ukraine? Wouldn't it be better to negotiate with Russia, make an agreement, already understanding the situation that is It seems to me that this is much smarter and more rational.
Speaker 0: Who blew up Nord Stream?
Speaker 1: You for sure.
Speaker 0: I was busy that day. Nate, do you have do you
Speaker 1: have me?
Speaker 0: I did not pull
Speaker 1: up Nord
Speaker 0: Stream. Thank you, though.
Speaker 1: You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi.
Speaker 0: Do do you have evidence that NATO or the CIA did it?
Speaker 1: Was NATO? No. You know, I won't get into details, but people always say in such cases, look for someone who
Speaker 0: is interested.
Speaker 1: But in this case, we should not only look for someone who is interested, but also for someone who has capabilities. Because there may be many people interested, but not all of them are capable of sinking to the bottom of the Baltic Sea Sea and carrying out this explosion. These two components should be connected. Who is interested, and who is capable of doing it?
Speaker 0: But I'm confused. I mean, that's the biggest act of industrial terrorism ever, and it's the largest emission of CO 2 in in history. Okay. So if you had evidence, and presumably given your security services, your intel services, you would, that NATO, the US, CIA, the West did this, why wouldn't you present it and win a propaganda victory?
Speaker 1: In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat the United States because the United States controls all the world's media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. Don't you know that? So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information, and we will not achieve results.
It is clear to the whole world what happened, and even American analysts talk about it directly. It's
Speaker 0: true. Yes. I but but here's a question you may be able to answer. You worked in Germany famously. The Germans clearly know that their NATO partner did this, but they and it damaged their economy greatly.
It may never recover. Why are they being silent about it? That's very confusing to me. Why wouldn't the Germans say something about it?
Speaker 1: This also confuses me. But today's German leadership is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than its national interests. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the logic of their action or inaction. After all, it is not only about Nord Stream 1, which was blown up, and the Nord Stream 2 was damaged. But one pipe is safe and sound, and gas can be supplied to Europe through it.
But Germany does not open it. We are ready, please. There's another route through Poland called Europe, which also allows for large flow. Poland has closed it, but Poland packs from the German hand. It receives money from the Pan European funds and Germany is the main donor to these Pan European funds.
Germany feeds Poland to the certain extent, and they close their route to Germany. Why? I don't understand. Ukraine, to which the Germans supply weapons and give money. Germany is the second sponsor of the United States in terms of financial aid to Ukraine.
There are 2 gas routes through Ukraine. They simply closed one route. The Ukrainians open the second route and please get gas from Russia. They do not open it. Why don't the Germans say, look, guys, we give you money and weapons.
Open up the valve, please. Let the gas from Russia pass through for us. We are buying liquefied gas at exorbitant prices in Europe, which brings the level of our competitiveness and economy in general down to 0. Do you want us to give you money? Let us have the decent existence.
Make money for our economy because this is where the money we give you comes from. They refuse to do so. Why? Ask them. That is what is like in their heads.
Those are highly incompetent people.
Speaker 0: Well, maybe the world is breaking into 2 hemispheres, one with cheap energy, the other without. And I wanna ask you that. If if we're now a multipolar world, obviously, we are. Can you describe the blocks of alliances? Who who is in each side, do you think?
Speaker 1: Listen. You have said that the world is breaking into 2 hemispheres. A human brain is divided into 2 hemispheres. 1 is responsible for one type of activities. The other one is more about creativity and so on.
But it is still one and the same head. The world should be a single whole. Security should be shared rather than a meant for the golden billion. That is the only scenario where the world could be stable, sustainable, and predictable. Until then, while the head is split in 2 parts, it is an illness, a serious adverse condition.
It is a period of severe disease that the world is going through now. But I think that, thanks to honest journalism, this work is akin to work of the doctors. This could somehow be remedied.
Speaker 0: Well, let's just give one example. The the US dollar, which has kind of united the world, in a lot of ways, maybe not to your advantage, but certainly to ours. Is that going away as the reserve currency that the common the universe accepted currency? How have sanctions, do you think, changed the dollar's place in the world? You
Speaker 1: know, to use the dollar as a tool of foreign policy struggle is one of the biggest strategic mistakes made by the US political leadership. The dollar is the cornerstone of the United States power. I think everyone understands very well that no matter how many dollars are printed, they are quickly dispersed all over the world. Inflation in the United States is minimal. It's about 3% or 3.4%, which is, I think, totally acceptable for the U.
S. But they won't stop printing. What does the debt of $33,000,000,000,000 tell us about? It is about the emission. Nevertheless, it is the main weapon used by the United States to preserve its power across the world.
As soon as the political leadership decided to use the US dollar as a tool of political struggle, a blow was dealt to this American power. I would not like to use any strong language, but it is a stupid thing to do and a grave mistake. Look at what is going on in the world. Even the United States allies are now downsizing their dollar reserves. Seeing this, everyone starts looking for ways to protect themselves.
But the fact that the United States applies restrictive measures to certain countries, such as placing restrictions on transactions, freezing assets, etcetera, causes great concern and sends a signal to the whole world. What did we have here? Until 2022, about 80% of Russian foreign trade transactions were made in US dollars and euros. US dollars accounted for approximately 50% of our transactions with third countries, while currently, it is down to 13%. It wasn't us who banned the use of the US dollar.
We had no such intention. It was decision of the United States to restrict our transactions in US dollars. I think it is complete foolishness from the point of view of the interest of the United States itself and its taxpayers as it damages the US economy, undermines the power of the United States across the world. By the way, our transactions in yuan accounted for about 3%. Today, 34% of our transactions are made in rubles and about as much a little over 34% in yuan.
Why did the United States do this? My only guess is self conceit. They probably thought that that would lead to full collapse, but nothing collapsed. Moreover, other countries, including oil producers, are thinking of and already accepting payments for oil in you. Do you even realize what is going on or not?
Does anyone in the United States realize this? What are you doing? You're cutting yourself off. All experts say this. Ask any intelligent and thinking person in the United States what the dollar means for the US.
You're killing it with your own hands.
Speaker 0: I think that's a I I think that's a fair assessment. The question is what comes next, and maybe you trade one colonial power for another much less sentimental and forgiving colonial power. I mean, are is the the the BRICS, for example, in danger of being completely dominated by the Chinese the Chinese economy, in a way that's not good for their sovereignty.
Speaker 1: Do you
Speaker 0: worry about that? It it is.
Speaker 1: We have heard those boogeyman stories before. It is a boogeyman story. We're neighbors with China. You cannot choose neighbors just as you cannot choose close relatives. We share a border of 1,000 kilometers with them.
This is number 1. 2nd, we have a centuries long history of coexistence. We are used to it. 3rd, China's foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive. Its idea is to always look for compromise, and we can
Speaker 0: see that.
Speaker 1: The next point is as follows. We are always told the same boogeyman story and here it goes again through an euphemistic form, but it is still the same boogeyman story. The cooperation with China keeps increasing. The pace at which China's cooperation with Europe is growing is higher and greater than that of the growth of Chinese Russian cooperation. Ask Europeans, aren't they afraid?
They might be. I don't know. But they are still trying to access China's market at all costs, especially now that they are facing economic problems. Chinese businesses are also exploring the European market. Do Chinese businesses have small presence in the United States?
Yes. The political decisions are such that they are trying to limit their cooperation with China. It is to your own detriment, mister Tucker, that you are limiting cooperation with China. You are hurting yourself. It is a delicate matter, and there are no silver bullet solutions just as it is with the dollar.
So before introducing any illegitimate sanctions, illegitimate in terms of the charter of the United Nations, one should think very carefully. For decision makers, this appears to be a problem.
Speaker 0: So you said a moment ago that the world would be a lot better if it weren't broken into competing alliances, if there was cooperation globally. One of the reasons you don't have that is because the current American administration is dead set against you. Do you think if there were a new administration after Joe Biden that you would be able to reestablish communication with the US government, or does it not matter who the president is?
Speaker 1: I will tell you, but let me finish the previous thought. We, together with my colleague and friend, president Xi Jinping, set a goal to reach $200,000,000,000 of mutual trade with China this year. We have exceeded this level. According to our figures, our bilateral trade with China totals already 230,000,000,000 and the Chinese statistics says it is $240,000,000,000 One more important thing. Our trade is well balanced, mutually complementary in high-tech, energy, scientific research and development.
It is very balanced. As for BRICS, where Russia took over the presidency this year, the BRICS countries are, by and large, developing very rapidly. Look, if memory serves me right, back in 1992, the share of the G7 countries in the world economy amounted to 47%. Whereas in 2022, it was down to, I think, a little over 30%. The BRICS countries accounted for only 16% in 1992, but now their share is greater than that of the g seven.
It has nothing to do with the events in Ukraine. This is due to the trends of global development and world economy, as I mentioned just now. And this is inevitable. This will keep happening. It is like the rise of the sun.
You cannot prevent the sun from rising. You have to adapt to it. How do the United States adapt? With the help of force, sanctions, pressure, bombings, and use of armed forces. This is about self conceit.
Your political establishment does not understand that the world is changing under objective circumstances. And in order to preserve your level, even if someone aspires, pardon me, to the level of dominance, you have to make the right decisions in a competent and timely manner. Such brutal actions, including with regard to Russia and, say, other countries, are counterproductive. This is an obvious fact. It has already become evident.
You just asked me if another leader comes and changes something. It is not about the leader. It is not about the personality of a particular person. I had a very good relationship with, say, Bush. I know that in the United States, he was portrayed as some kind of a country boy who does not understand much.
I assure you that this is not the case. I think he made a lot of mistakes with regard to Russia too. I told you about 2,008 and the decision in Bucharest to open the NATO's doors to for Ukraine and so on. That happened during his presidency. He actually exercised pressure on the Europeans.
But in general, on a personal human level, I had a very good relationship with him. He was no worse than any other American or Russian or European politician. I assure you, he understood what he was doing as well as others. I had such personal relationship with Trump as well. It is not about the personality of the leader.
It is about the elites' mindset. If the idea of domination at any cost based also on forceful actions dominates the American society, nothing will change. It will only get worse. But if in the end, one comes to the awareness that the world has been changing due to the objective circumstances and that one should be able to adapt to them in time using the advantages that the US still has today, then perhaps something may change. Look, China's economy has become the 1st economy in the world in purchasing power parity.
In terms of volume, it overtook the US a long time ago. The USA comes second, then India, Sanctions, restrictions, impossibility of payments in dollars being cut off from swift services, sanctions against our ships carrying oil, sanctions against airplanes, sanctions in everything, everywhere. The largest number of sanctions in the world which are applied are applied against Russia. And we have become Europe's first economy during this time. The tools that US uses don't work.
Well, one has to think about what to do. If this realization comes to the ruling elites, then yes. Then the first person of the state will act in anticipation of what the voters and the people who make decisions at various levels expect from this person. Then maybe something will change.
Speaker 0: But you're you're describing 2 different systems. You say that the leader acts in the interest of the voters, but you also say these decisions are not made by the leader. They're made by the ruling classes. You've run this country for so long. You've known all these American presidents.
What are those power centers
Speaker 1: gun.
Speaker 0: In the United States, do you think? Like, who actually makes the decisions?
Speaker 1: I don't know. America is a complex country, conservative on one hand, rapidly changing on the other. It's not easy for us to sort it all out. Who makes decisions in the elections? Is it possible to understand this when each state has its own legislation?
Each state regulates itself? Someone can be excluded from elections at the state level. It is a 2 stage electoral system. It is very difficult for us to understand it. Certainly, there are 2 parties that are dominant, the Republicans and the Democrats.
And within this party system, the centers that make decisions, that prepare decisions. Then, look, why in my opinion, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, such an erroneous, crude, completely unjustified policy of pressure was pursued against Russia. After all, this is a policy of pressure. NATO expansion, support for the separatists in Caucasus, creation of a missile defense system. These are all elements of pressure.
Pressure. Pressure. Pressure. Then dragging Ukraine into NATO is all about pressure, pressure, pressure. Why?
I think among other things because excessive production capacities were created. During the confrontation with the Soviet Union, there were many centers created and specialists on the Soviet Union who could not do anything else. They convinced the political leadership that it is necessary to continue chiseling Russia, to try to break it out, to create on this territory several quasi state entities, and to It is necessary to get rid of this. There should be new fresh forces, people who look into the future and understand what is happening in the world. Look at how Indonesia is developing.
600,000,000 people. Where can we get away from that? Nowhere. We just have to assume that Indonesia will enter. It is already in the club of the world's leading economies no matter who likes it or dislikes it.
Yes, we understand and are aware that in the United States, despite all the economic problems, the situation is still normal with the economy growing decently. The GDP is growing by 2.5%, if I'm not mistaken. But if we want to ensure the future, then we need to change our approach to what is changing. As I already said, the world would nevertheless change regardless of how the developments in Ukraine end. The world is changing.
And the United States themselves, experts are writing that the United States are nonetheless gradually changing their position in the world. It is your experts who write that. I just read them. The only question is how this would happen, painfully and quickly or gently and gradually. And this is written by people who are not anti American.
They simply follow global development trends. That's it. And in order to assess them and change policies, we need people who think, look forward, can analyze, and recommend certain decisions at the level of political leaders.
Speaker 0: I just have to ask. You've said clearly that NATO expansion eastward is a violation of the promise you all were made in 1990. It it's a threat to your country. Right before you sent troops into Ukraine, the vice president of the United States went to the Munich Security Conference and encouraged the president of Ukraine to join NATO. Do you think that was an effort to provoke you into military action?
Speaker 1: I repeat once again: We have repeatedly, repeatedly proposed to seek a solution to the problems that arose in Ukraine after 2014 could attack through peaceful means. But no one listened to us. And moreover, the Ukrainian leaders who were under the complete U. S. Control suddenly declared that they would not comply with the Minsk agreements.
They disliked everything there and continued military activity in that territory. And in parallel, that territory was being exploited by NATO military structures under the guise of various personnel training and retraining centers. They essentially began to create bases there. That's all. Ukraine announced that the Russians were a nontitular nationality while passing the laws that limit the rights of nontitular nationalities in Ukraine.
Ukraine, having received all these southeastern territories as a gift from the Russian people, suddenly announced that the Russians were a nontitular nationality in that territory. Is that normal? All this put together led to the decision to end the war that neo Nazis started in Ukraine in 2014.
Speaker 0: Do you Do you think Zelensky has the freedom to negotiate a settlement to this conflict?
Speaker 1: I don't know the details. Of course, it's difficult for me to judge. But I believe he has in any case he used to have. His father fought against the fascists, Nazis, during World War 2. I once talked to him about this.
I said, what are you doing? Why are you supporting Neo Nazis in Ukraine today while your father fought against fascism? He was a frontline soldier. I will not tell you what he answered. This is a separate topic, and I think it's incorrect for me to do so.
But as to the freedom of choice, why not? He came to power on the expectations of Ukrainian people that he would lead Ukraine to peace. He talked about this. It was thanks to this that he won the elections overwhelmingly. But then when he came to power, in my opinion, he realized two things.
Firstly, it is better not to clash with neo Nazis and nationalists because they are aggressive and very active. You can expect anything from them. And secondly, the US led West supports them and will always support those who antagonize with Russia. It is beneficial and safe. So he took the relevant position despite promising his people to end the war in Ukraine.
He deceived his voters.
Speaker 0: But do you think at this point, as of February 2024, he has the latitude, the freedom to speak with you or your government directly about putting an end to this, which clearly isn't helping his country or the world. Can he do that, do you think?
Speaker 1: Why not? He considers himself head of state. He won the elections. Although, we believe in Russia that the coup d'etat is the primary source of power for everything that happened after 2014. And in this sense, even today, government is flawed.
But he considers himself the president, and he is recognized by the United States, all of Europe, and practically the rest of the world in such a capacity. Why not? He can. We negotiated with Ukraine and Istanbul. We agreed.
He was aware of this. Moreover, the negotiation group leader, mister Rhamiy is his last name, I believe still has the faction of the ruling party, the party of the president in the Rada. He still has the presidential faction in the Rada, the country's parliament. He still sits there. He even put his preliminary signature on the document I am telling you about.
But then he publicly stated to the whole world, we were ready to sign this document. But mister Johnson, then the prime minister of British Britain, came and dissuaded us from doing this, saying it was better to fight Russia. They would give everything needed for us to return what was lost during the clashes with Russia, and we agreed with this proposal. Look. His statement has been published.
He said it publicly. Can they return to this or not? The question is, do they want it or not? Further on, president Ukraine issued a decree prohibiting negotiations with us. Let him cancel that decree, and that's it.
We have never refused negotiations, indeed. We hear all the time, is Russia ready? Yes. We have not refused. It was them who publicly refused.
Well, let him cancel his decree and enter into negotiations. We have never refused. And the fact that they obeyed the demand or persuasion of mister Johnson, the former prime minister of Great Britain, seems ridiculous and very sad to me. Because as mister Arakamiya put it, we could have stopped those hostilities with war a year and a half ago already. But the British persuaded us, and we refused this.
Where is mister Johnson now? And the war continues.
Speaker 0: That's a good question. Where do you think he is, and why did he do that?
Speaker 1: Hell knows. I don't understand it myself. There was a general starting point. For some reason, everyone had the illusion that Russia could be defeated on the battlefield. Because of arrogance, because of a pure heart, but not because of a great mind.
Speaker 0: You've described the connection between Russia and Ukraine. You've described Russia itself a couple of times as orthodox. That's central to your understanding of Russia. You said you're orthodox. What does that mean for you?
You're a Christian leader by your own description. So what effect does that have on you?
Speaker 1: You know, as I already mentioned, in 988, prince Vladimir himself was baptized following the example of his grandmother, princess Olga. And then he baptized his squad. And then gradually, over the course of several years, he baptized all the Rus'. It was a lengthy process from pagans to Christians. It took many years.
But in the end, this orthodoxy, Eastern Christianity, deeply rooted itself in the consciousness of the Russian people. When Russia expanded and absorbed other nations who profess Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism, Russia has always been very loyal to those people who profess other religions. This is her
Speaker 0: strength.
Speaker 1: This is absolutely clear. And the fact is that the main postulates, main values are very similar, not to say the same in all world religions I've just mentioned and which are the traditional religions of the Russian Federation. Russia. By the way, Russian authorities were always very careful about the culture and religion of those people who came into the Russian empire. This, in my opinion, forms the basis of both security and stability of the Russian statehood.
All the peoples inhabiting Russia basically consider it their motherhood. You say people move over to you or to Europe from Latin America, an even clearer and more understandable example, people come but yet they have come to you or to European countries from their historical homeland And people who profess different religions in Russia consider Russia their motherland. They have no other motherland. We are together. This is one big family, And our traditional values are very similar.
I've just mentioned one big family, but everyone has his, her own family. And this is the basis of our society. And if we say that the motherland and the family are specifically connected with each other it is indeed the case since it is impossible to ensure a normal future for our children and our families unless we ensure a normal, sustainable future for the entire country, for the motherland. That is why patriotic sentiment is so strong in Russia.
Speaker 0: Can I can I say that the one way in which the religions are different is that Christianity is specifically a non violent religion? Jesus says turn the other cheek, don't kill. How can a leader who has to kill of any country, how can a leader be a Christian? How do you reconcile that to yourself?
Speaker 1: It is very easy. When it comes to protecting oneself and one's family, one's homeland, we won't attack anyone. When did the developments in Ukraine start? Since the coup d'etat and the hostilities in Donbas began, that's when they started. And we're protecting our people, ourselves, our homeland, and our future.
As for religion in general, you know, it's not about external manifestations. It's not about going to church every day or banging your head on the floor. It is in the heart. And our culture is so human oriented. Dostoevsky, who was very well known in the West and the genius of Russian culture, Russian literature, spoke a lot about this, about the Russian soul.
After all, Western society is more pragmatic. Russian people think more about the eternal, about moral values. I don't know. Maybe you won't agree with me, but Western culture is more pragmatic after all. I'm not saying this is bad.
It makes it possible for today's golden billion to achieve good success in production, even in science and so on. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that we kind of look the same in our mind.
Speaker 0: So do you see the supernatural at work as you look out across what's happening in the world now? Do you see God at work? Do you ever think to yourself, these are forces that are not human?
Speaker 1: No, to be honest. I don't think so. My opinion is that the development of the world community is in accordance with inherent laws, and those laws are what they are. It's always been this way in the history of mankind. Some nations and countries rose, became stronger and more numerous, and then left the international stage losing the status they had accustomed to.
There's probably no need for me to give examples, but we could start with the Genghis Khan and horde conquerors, the Golden Horde, and then end with the Roman Empire. It seems that there has never been anything like the Roman Empire in the history of mankind. Nevertheless, the potential of the barbarians gradually grew as did their population. In general, the barbarians were getting stronger and begun to develop economically, as we would say today. This eventually led to the collapse of the Roman Empire and the regime imposed by the Romans.
However, it took 5 centuries for the Roman Empire to fall apart. The difference with what is happening now is that all the processes of change are happening at the much faster pace than in Roman
Speaker 0: times. So when does the AI empire start, do you think?
Speaker 1: You're asking increasingly more complicated questions. To answer them, you need to be an expert in big numbers, big data and AI. Mankind is currently facing many threats. Due to the genetic researches, it is now possible to create a superhuman, a specialized human being, a genetically engineered athlete, scientist, military man. There are reports that Elon Musk had already had a chip implanted in the human brain in the USA.
Speaker 0: What do you think of that?
Speaker 1: Well, I think there's no stopping Elon Musk. He will do as he sees fit. Nevertheless, you need to find some common ground with him, search for ways to persuade him. I think he's a smart person. I truly believe he is.
So you need to reach an agreement with him because this process needs to be formalized and subjected to certain rules. Humanity has to consider what is going to happen due to the newest development in genetics or in AI. One can make an approximate prediction of what will happen. Once mankind felt an existential threat coming from nuclear weapons, All nuclear nations began to come to terms with one another since they realized the negligent use of nuclear weaponry could drive humanity to extinction. It is impossible to stop research in genetics or AI today just as it was impossible to stop the use of gunpowder back in the day.
But as soon as we realize that the threat comes from unbridled and uncontrolled development of AI or genetics or any other field, the time will come to reach an international agreement on how to regulate these things.
Speaker 0: I I appreciate all the time, you've given us. I just gotta ask you one last question, and that's about someone who's very famous in the United States, probably not here, Evan Gershkovitz, who's The Wall Street Journal reporter. He's 32, and he's been in prison for almost a year. This is a huge story in the United States, and I just want to ask you directly, without getting into the details of it or your version of what happened, if, as a sign of your decency, you would be willing to release him to us, and we'll bring him back to the United States?
Speaker 1: We have done so many gestures of goodwill out of decency that I think we have run out of them. We have never seen anyone reciprocate to us in a similar manner. However, in theory, we can say that we do not rule out that we can do that if our partners take reciprocal steps. When I talk about the partners, I, first of all, refer to special services. Special services are in contact with one another.
They are talking about the matter in question. There is no taboo to settle this issue. We are willing to solve it. But there are certain terms being discussed via special services channels. I believe an agreement can be reached.
Speaker 0: So, typically, I mean, this stuff has happened for, obviously, centuries. One country catches another spy within its borders. It trades it for one of its own intel guys in another country. I think what makes and it's not my business. But what makes this difference is the guy's obviously not a spy.
He's a kid. And maybe he was breaking your law in some way, but he's not a super spy, and everybody knows that, and he's being held hostage in exchange, which is true. With respect, it's true, and everyone knows it's true. So maybe he's in a different category. Maybe it's not fair to ask for, you know, somebody else in exchange for letting him out.
Maybe it degrades Russia to do that.
Speaker 1: You know, you can give different interpretations to what you aspire. But there are certain things provided by law. If person gets secret information and does that in a conspiratorial manner, then this is a qualified as espionage. And that is exactly what he was doing. He was receiving classified confidential information and he did it covertly.
Maybe he did that out of carelessness or his own initiative. Considering the sheer fact that this is qualified as espionage, The fact has been proven as he was caught red handed when he was receiving this information. If it had been some far fetched excuse, some fabrication, something not proven, it would have been different story then. But he was caught red handed when he was secretly getting confidential information. What is it then?
Speaker 0: But are you suggesting he was working for the US government or NATO, or he was just a reporter who was given material he wasn't supposed to have? Those seem like very different very different things.
Speaker 1: I don't know who he was working for, But I would like to reiterate that getting classified information in secret is called espionage, and he was working for the US Special Services, some other agencies. I don't think he was working for Monaco as Monaco is hardly interested in getting that information. It is up to special services to come to an agreement. Some groundwork has been laid. There are people who, in our view, are not connected with special services.
Let me tell you a story about a person serving a sentence in an allied country of the US. That person, due to patriotic sentiments, eliminated a bandit in one of the European capitals during the events in the Caucasus. Do you know what he was doing? I don't want to say that, but I will do it anyway. He was laying our soldiers, taken prisoner, on the road and then drove his car over their heads.
What kind of person is that? Can he even be called human? But there was a patriot who eliminated him in one of the European capitals. Whether he did it of his own volition or not, that is a different question.
Speaker 0: I mean, that's a completely different I mean, I mean, it's a 32 year old, like, most people the owner.
Speaker 1: He committed something different. He's not just a journalist. I reiterate, he's a journalist who was secretly getting confidential information. Yes. It is different, but still, I'm talking about other people who are essentially controlled by the US authorities wherever they are serving a sentence.
There is an ongoing dialogue between the special services. This has to be resolved in a calm, responsible, and professional manner. They are keeping in touch, so let them do their work. I do not rule out that the person you refer to, mister Gershkovits, may return to his motherland. By the end of the day, it does not make any sense to keep him in prison in Russia.
We want the US special services to think about how they can contribute to achieving the goals our special services are pursuing. We are ready to talk. Moreover, the talks are on their way. And there have been many successful examples of these talks crowned with success. Probably, this is going to be crowned with success as well.
But we have to come to an agreement.
Speaker 0: I hope you let him out. Mister president, thank you.
Speaker 1: I also want him to return to his homeland at last. I'm absolutely sincere. But let me say once again, the dialogue continues. The more public we render things of this nature, the more difficult it becomes to resolve them. Everything has to be done in calm manner.
Speaker 0: I wonder if that's I wonder if that's true with the war, though, also. I mean, I just wanna I guess I wanna ask one more question, which is, and maybe you don't wanna say so for strategic reasons, but are you worried that what's happening in Ukraine could lead to something much larger and much more horrible? And how motivated are you just to call the US government and say, let's come to terms?
Speaker 1: I already said that we did not refuse to talk. We're willing to negotiate. It is the western side, and Ukraine is obviously a satellite state of the US. It is evident. I do not want you to take it as if I'm looking for a strong word or an insult, but we both understand what is happening.
The financial support, 72,000,000,000 US dollars was provided. Germany ranks second, then other European countries come. Dozens of 1,000,000,000 of US dollars are going to Ukraine. There's a huge influx of weapons. In this case, you should tell the current Ukrainian leadership to stop and come to negotiating table, rescind this absurd decree.
We did not refuse.
Speaker 0: Sure. But you already said it. I didn't think you meant it as an insult, because you already said correctly. It's been reported that Ukraine was prevented from negotiating a peace settlement by the former British prime minister acting on behalf of the Biden administration. So, of course, they're a satellite.
Big countries control small countries. That's not new. And that's why I asked about dealing directly with the Biden administration, which is making these decisions, not president Zelensky of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Well, if the Zelensky administration in Ukraine refused to negotiate, I assume they did it under the instruction from Washington. If Washington believes it to be the wrong decision, let it abandon it. Let it find a delicate excuse so that no one is insulted. Let it come up with the way out. It was not us who made this decision.
It was them. So let them go back on it. That is it. However, they made the wrong decision, and now we have to look for a way out of the situation to correct their mistakes. They did it, so let them correct it themselves.
We support this.
Speaker 0: So I just wanna make sure I'm not misunderstanding what you're saying. I don't think that I am. I think you're saying you want a negotiated settlement to what's happening in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Right. And we made it. We prepared a huge document in Istanbul that was initialed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation. He affixed his signature to some of the provisions, not so all of it. He put his signature and then he himself said, we were ready to sign it and the war would have been over long ago, 18 months ago.
However, prime minister Johnson came, talked us out of it, and we missed that chance. Well, you missed it. You made a mistake. Let them get back to that. That is all.
Why do we have to bother ourselves and correct somebody else's mistakes? I know one can say it is our mistake. It was us who intensified the situation and decided to put an end to the war that started in 2014 in Donbas. As I have already said, by means of weapons, Let me get back to furthering history. I already told you this.
We were just discussing. Let us go back to 1991 when we were promised that NATO would not expand To 2,008 when the doors to NATO opened to the declaration of state sovereignty of Ukraine declaring Ukraine a neutral state. Let us go back to the fact that NATO and US military bases started to appear on the territory of Ukraine, creating threats to us. Let us go Ukraine, creating threats to us. Let us go back to coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2014.
It is pointless, though, isn't it? We may go back and forth endlessly, but they stopped negotiations. Is it a mistake? Yes. Correct it.
We are ready. What else is needed?
Speaker 0: Do you think it's too humiliating at this point for NATO to accept Russian control of what was, 2 years ago, Ukrainian territory?
Speaker 1: I said, let them think how to do it with dignity. There are options if there is a will. Up until now, there has been the uproar and screaming about inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. Now they are apparently coming to realize that it is difficult to achieve, if possible at all. In my opinion, it is impossible by definition.
It is never going to happen. It seems to me that now those who are in power in the West have come to realize this as well. If so, if the realization has set in, they have to think what to do next. We are ready for this dialogue.
Speaker 0: Would you be willing to say, congratulations, NATO. You won, and just keep the situation where it is now?
Speaker 1: You know, it is a subject matter for the negotiations. No one is willing to conduct or to put it more accurately. They are willing but do not know how to do it. I know they want to. It is not just I see it, but I know they do want it.
But they are struggling to understand how to do They have driven the situation to the point where we are at. It is not us who have done that. It is our partners, opponents who have done that. Well, now let them think how to reverse the situation. We're not against it.
It would be funny if it were not so sad. This endless mobilization in Ukraine, the hysteria, the domestic problems, sooner or later, it will result in agreement. You know this probably sounds strange given the current situation, But the relations between the two peoples will be rebuilt anyway. It will take a lot of time, but they will heal. I'll give you very unusual examples.
There is a combat encounter on the battlefield. Here's a specific example. Ukrainian soldiers got encircled. This is an example from real life. Our soldiers were shouting to them.
There is no chance. Surrender yourselves. Come out, and you will be alive. Suddenly, the Ukrainian soldiers were screaming from there in Russian, perfect Russian, saying, Russians do not surrender, and all of them perished. They still identify themselves as Russian.
What is happening is, to a certain extent, an element of a civil war. Everyone in the West thinks that the Russian people have been split by hostilities forever. Now they will be reunited. Yeah. The unity is still there.
Why are the Ukrainian authorities dismantling the Ukrainian Orthodox Church? Because it brings together not only the territory. It brings together our souls. No one will be able to separate the soul. Shall we end here?
Or is there anything else?
Speaker 0: No, I think that's great.
Speaker 1: I assume.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 1: President.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@RobertKennedyJr - Robert F. Kennedy Jr
Here’s the truth about the war in Ukraine https://t.co/pBf4XkTO21
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the war in Ukraine and claims that Russia tried to settle it on favorable terms. They argue that the US spends a significant amount of money on military contracts and expanding NATO. The speaker criticizes the allocation of funds, stating that the money could have been used to address homelessness. They also mention that the war will require further expenses for rebuilding. The speaker suggests that politicians and defense manufacturers benefit from this situation, referring to it as a money laundering scheme. They question the loan given to Ukraine and its repayment prospects. The speaker highlights the loan conditions imposed, including austerity measures and the sale of government-owned assets to multinational corporations. They express concern over the ownership of these corporations, specifically mentioning BlackRock. The speaker concludes by stating that the strategy of keeping people divided allows those in power to continue their actions unchecked.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's a war that should have never happened. It's a war that Russians tried repeatedly to settle on terms that were very, very beneficial to Ukraine and us. The major thing they wanted was for us to keep NATO out of the Ukraine. The big military contractors and want to add new countries to NATO all the time. Why?
Because then that country has to conform its military purchases and NATO weapon specifications, which means certain companies, North Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Lockheed and get a trapped market. March of 2022, we committed a $113,000,000,000. Just to give you an example, we could have built a home for almost every homeless person in this country. We then committed another 24,000,000,000 since that 2 months ago, and now president Biden's asking for another 60,000,000,000. But the big, big expenses are gonna come after the war when we have to rebuild all the things that we destroy.
Mitch McConnell was asked, and we really afford to set to spend a 113,000,000,000 to Ukraine. He said, don't worry. It's not really going to Ukraine. It's going to American defense manufacturers. So he just admitted it's a money laundering scheme.
And who do you think owns every one of those companies? And BlackRock. So Tim Scott, during the Republican debate, said, don't worry. It's not a gift to Ukraine. It's a loan.
Raise your hand if you think that that loan is ever getting paid back. Yeah. Of course, it's not. So why do they call it a loan? And if they call it a loan, they can impose loan conditions.
And what are the loan conditions that we impose on? Number 1, extreme austerity program. So if you're poor in Ukraine, you're gonna be poor forever. Number 2, most important, Ukraine has and put all of its government owned assets up for sale to multinational corporations, including all of its agricultural land, the biggest single asset in Europe. In Ukraine, there's been a 1000 years of war fought over that land.
It's the richest farmland in the world. It's the breadbasket of Europe. 500,000 kids almost. Ukrainian kids have died to keep that land as part of Ukraine. They almost certainly didn't know about this long condition.
They've already sold 30% of it. The buyers were DuPont, Cargill, and Monsanto. Who do you think owns all of those companies? BlackRock. Yeah.
BlackRock. And then in December, president Biden and gave out the contract to rebuild Ukraine. And who do you think got that contract? And Iraq. So they're doing this right in front of us.
They don't even care that we know anymore because they know and that they can get away with it. And how do they know that? Because they have a strategy. And that strategy is old, old strategy, which is they keep us at war with each other. They keep us hating on each other.
They keep the republicans and democrats fighting each other and black against white and all these divisions that they saw.
@Cancelcloco - Ian Carroll
The real reason the Putin interview terrified mainstream? Because the US backed a Nazi coup of the democratically elected president in 2014. The US and CIA started the war in Ukraine and they knew exactly what they were doing. https://t.co/O2q7IroXng
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses the US's history of overthrowing democratically elected governments and its involvement in Ukraine. It highlights the CIA's support for neo-Nazis and far-right extremists in Ukraine, leading to the 2014 coup and the rise of the Svoboda party. The video also mentions the Azov battalion, a neo-Nazi militia that is part of Ukraine's official armed forces. It criticizes the biased portrayal of the conflict by Western media and highlights the financial gains made by the military-industrial complex. The video argues that Putin's actions in response to the coup were predictable and that much of the information presented about the conflict is propaganda.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Know that one time when the US helped neo nazis overthrow democratically elected president? Do you know what country I'm talking about? But before we get started, you should brush up on basic facts about the US's involvement in regime change throughout history because we've been doing this all over the world for more than a 100 years now. Although, we sped up considerably after World War 2 with the founding of the CIA. That brings us to Allen Dulles, the godfather of the CIA, who was a very wealthy and influential businessman And largely because of his deep ties to big Nazi money before and after World War 2, and I guess during too Actually.
And after World War 2, the CIA helped set up a whole bunch of what they call stay behind operations, which is just a way of saying they funded that were mostly leftovers from the Nazi party in Europe because the Nazis hated communism. And so they just, like, yeah, these guys are useful. Let's Keep them around. We also poached all the Nazi scientists during operation paperclip. And so all of that is just to set the stage and remind you That the US is great at overthrowing governments, usually democratically elected ones.
Usually because they are too friendly with Russia, And the anecdote is usually to put dictators and far right extremists in power that will bend the need of the US. And also just to remind you, refresh you that The CIA and the US in general have no qualms about working with Nazis and Neo Nazis. So now it's time to learn the real history of the war in Ukraine. Because apparently, Putin nearly bored Tucker to death with a 2 hour long history lesson. So we'll do it faster and with sources.
Maybe I'll get my very own Some your article from the Daily Beast. So in 2010, Ukraine elected this guy, Viktor Yanukovych, to be their president. In what were hailed as remarkably democratic elections, It's giving me awful state of Ukraine at the time. Yanukovych happens to be from Donetsk Oblast where he was previously the governor? That would be this dark red one where Russian is the native language of more than 75% of the population.
In fact, this whole side of Ukraine is largely ethnically Russian. And he was logically very pro Russia. I mean, like, they are literal neighbors. But anyways, that was not cool with the US. And it was also not cool with all of the Nazis in Ukraine, like Tons of Nazis.
And if there's one thing the CIA is good at, it's at not letting a good revolution go to waste. And they actually were totally out in the open this time. John McCain himself went and dined with the opposition leaders including the far right Scoboda party which would eventually take over. He literally shared a stage at the public protest with the leader of this party? This is back in December of 2013 leading up to the US backed coup in 2014.
And back then, everyone knew that Ukraine had a real Nazi Here's the EU talking about it back in 2014. The Svoboda party is a far right party launched in 1991 and it took on this swastika like symbol Composed of I and an n, which stood for Idea Nazi or idea of the nation. Literally, that was their logo Until they had a whole rebranding later on. Like for real, this was an actual Nazi symbol used by Nazi divisions called the Wolfsnagel during World War 2 and that is The Svoboda party's symbol. This article is also from 2014 originally, updated in 2017.
Regrettably, the vaccine against the virus of Nazism produced at the Nuremberg tribunal is losing its original strength in some parts of European countries. That's a quote from Vladimir Putin. Remember when Canada got all kerfuffle because they accidentally had a standing ovation for a Nazi war criminal when Baby boy Ukraine came to give a little speech and they all stood up and applauded the old Nazi war criminal. If that was confusing to you as to why and how that would happen, the answer is because A ton of people from Ukraine are old Nazi war criminals. Ukraine is full of Nazis.
In fact, Most of Ukraine's military fighting power is because of Azov battalion, which is the direct descendant of the Svoboda party that took Over in the 2014 coup, Azov actually reached out around the world and recruited Neo Nazis from foreign countries to come get training to fight in Ukraine. They were banned from Facebook for racist and anti semitic content. They titled one of their pages gas chambers. But when Russia launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and we all wanted to make a lot of money off of it, some media outlets changed the way they describe days off And Ukraine in general. German state owned media outlets like Deutsche Welle, which once described Azov as a Neo Nazi regiment soon began labeling allegations of Neo naz as Russian propaganda.
My. That's a familiar story. Because the United States literally openly financially and politically supported A neo Nazi militia terrorist group to take over the government of a democratic Ukraine. And then Crimeans who are ethnically Russian voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, and then the bulk of western media abandoned any hint of even Remotely balanced journalism. And now we're comparing Putin to Hitler and completely ignoring the actual Neo Nazis that are committing pogroms on the streets of Ukraine?
The leader of Ukraine's most distinguished fighting battalion, Azov battalion, Once wrote that Ukraine's mission is to quote, lead the white races of the world in a final crusade against the semi led Untermenschen. He is now a deputy in Ukraine's parliament. And the stories of Ukrainian nazism are not coming from Russian media. They're coming from western media like Radio Free Europe, like Jewish Organizations, like the World Jewish Congress, and the Simon Wentz, whatever, Center. Watchdogs like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House.
Post mid on Ukraine is the world's only nation to have a Neo Nazi Formation in its official armed forces. And sorry, if you don't know what I mean when I say post Maidan Ukraine, that might be because they decided on a more like Nice sounding Wikipedia name. They called it the revolution of dignity instead of the original name, the Maidan Revolution. Because when Neo Nazis Please take over a democratic government. It should be called the revolution of dignity.
So now put yourself in Putin's shoes in 2014. The CIA has just overthrown the government of your next door neighbor. Think Russia overthrowing the government of Mexico. No. And they have installed a Nazi party as the head of it.
And then that Nazi party is going through the streets where they're all ethnic Russians and killing people? I mean, not to mention the NATO connection that now NATO is talking about getting in on Ukraine. I'm not trying to say that Putin is a good guy or that he's never done anything bad. I'm trying to say that literally every single thing that you could say that Putin has done that is bad, The United States government also does all the time. And from a geopolitics standpoint, the outcome of that is obvious.
It started in 2014, And no shit Putin was gonna do something about it. Everyone knew that Putin was gonna do something about it ever since 2014. But We didn't ignore it because we didn't think it was true. The United States did it because we wanted this outcome. We're gonna briefly skip over the whole part where the Biden family, the Biden vice presidency was actually very distinctly involved in the build up to the Ukraine war throughout his vice presidency and all of the kickbacks that his family got from that involvement?
And we'll skip straight To the money that is getting raked in by the military industrial complex ever since the start of the Ukraine war in 2022. US government approved arms sales just to NATO allies Went from 15,000,000,000 to 28,000,000,000. Private sales directly from military contractors to foreign governments went from a 103,000,000,000 to a 153,000,000,000. And all the while, all the corporate shill ass media reports it as though beating Russia in the arms market is part of a wider effort to isolate Moscow and its manufacturing capacity to weaken its forces arrayed against Ukraine? Quick.
Enrich the defense contractors for democracy. The only way to save democracy It's to give 1,000,000,000 of dollars to Lockheed Martin. Otherwise, Putin is gonna win. Except that Putin has said many times that he is willing to negotiate. He's happy to negotiate.
He doesn't even wanna take over all of Ukraine. He just wants that port right there and these Russians to be safe and NATO to stay the fuck away. He does not give a shit about Ukraine. He definitely doesn't give a shit about invading any other countries. He does not want that.
Russia is the biggest country in the world By a long shot. And almost all of it is uninhabited. They have more natural resources than anyone else. They have tons of their own problems to deal with, And they certainly don't want a nuclear conflict with other major world powers. And to this day, basically everything that Americans have been told about this conflict It's complete propaganda.
And the number one rule of propaganda is you need a boogeyman. Once the cold war ended, they needed a new one. So we had Osama bin Laden. Once Osama bin Laden ended, they needed a new one. So we went back to Putin.
Nancy Pelosi actually tried to claim that Pro Palestine protests were Putin's propaganda machine. Anything that they don't like is because of Putin, Which is why they came out guns blazing against this interview because everything that they have been telling you about this is propaganda and lies.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Tucker's first discussion since the Vladimir Putin interview. https://t.co/t4O4NRYSV1
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses their determination to conduct an interview with Vladimir Putin despite obstacles from the US government. They emphasize their shock and anger at the government's surveillance and intrusion into their personal life. The speaker clarifies that their views are constantly evolving based on new evidence and that their main goal is to tell the truth. They express their disappointment in the current US administration's incompetence and criticize the state of American cities compared to Moscow. The speaker believes that compromise is necessary in international relations and highlights the need for leaders to understand history and the consequences of their actions. They criticize the biased media landscape and the erosion of democracy in the US. The speaker concludes by discussing the importance of humility and wisdom in leadership.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'll start in reverse order. Why now? Well, I've been trying for 3 years to do this interview. The US government prevented me from doing it by spying on my text messages and leaking them to the New York Times. And that spooked the Russian government into canceling the interview.
So I've been trying to do this, But my country's intel services were working against me illegally, and that enraged me, because I'm An American citizen. I'm 54. I pay my taxes. I obey the law. And there was no expectation in the America that I grew up in that my government and its Intel services NSA and CIA which were always outwardly focused on our foreign enemies, would be turned inward against American citizens.
And I'm shocked by that, and I'm infuriated by that. And so once I discovered that that was happening, and I confirmed it was happening, and they admitted that they did it, that I was totally determined, monomaniacally dedicated to doing this interview, not simply because I want to know, What Vladimir Putin is like, and what he thinks about a war that is resetting the world, and really, gravely damaging my country's economy. But also because they told me I couldn't, on the basis of illegitimate means, and for no really Clearly stated justification, and I thought, that can't stand. I don't I want to live in a free country. I was born in 1, and I'm going to do whatever small thing I can do to maintain, you know, the society that I I I k.
Speaker 1: I love. You are you are known to be Pro Republican party. Right wing of Republican party. This is what they claim. They said, first, you've been a democrat That's not true.
Became a republican. Okay. Or you are known to be pro Trump, anti Biden. What is truthful in this? And you went to Putin.
Because you are pro Trump and anti Biden?
Speaker 0: I mean, my views are not very interesting. I would I'm not sure how I'd characterize them. They're changing as quickly as the world itself is changing. And I as a matter of principle, I think that, you know, that your view should change when the evidence changes. And assumptions that you had in the past were proven wrong.
That has happened to me virtually every month of my life. If you pay close enough attention, you can rate your own performance, just as if you're betting on sports. You know, I lost That one. And when you do, when it turns out that things you thought were true were lies, you should admit it. So what are my views?
I'm not Tell the truth is my main view, and I plan to do that to the best of my abilities. So, Trump played no role in this whatsoever. There's, obviously, an election in my country Coming, to fruition in November, I have no idea what's going to happen. I think that the current administration is Very obviously incompetent, and the President is senile. That's not an attack.
Everyone knows it. It has now Been confirmed, I would say, this week, in the report that you're all familiar with. But, and that's very sad, But it it had sort of nothing to do with the interview. I wanted to interview Putin because he's the leader of a country that the US government is sort of at war with, though not in a in a declared way.
Speaker 1: Sir, you know your president, president Biden. Well, you've been working in several Media organizations from PBS, CNBC, m m m m m and and and and and and and and and and and and and and
Speaker 0: and and and
Speaker 1: and and and and and and, Fox News, CNN, And you've been covering this field well, and you know the American politicians. And now you've been following Putin, and you did A very lengthy interview with the gentleman. And for sure, to interview them, you did your homework, and you did your research. Comparing The culture, the competence between Vladimir Putin and Biden. How do you see the 2 men now, Running the world.
Speaker 0: I mean, if this were boxing, the fight would be called by the medic. So and I say that as an American. And I'm I don't have another passport. I don't plan to ever leave my country. My family's been there 100 of years, and I love it.
I am a patriotic American. And I grieve when I see that the President is noncompass menace. And that in my country, it is considered very rude to say that. And you sort of wonder, how did you get to place where you have an incompetent president who's driven, not simply the standard of living, but life expectancy downward, And no one feels free to say that. That's not a political observation.
It's a statement of fact, which is provable, empirically. And the most radicalizing thing I would just say, for me, in the 8 days I spent in Moscow, was not simply the leader of the country, who of course is impressive. It's the largest land mass in the world. And it's wildly diverse, linguistically, culturally, religiously. It's hard to run a country like that for 24 years, whether you like it or not.
So an incapable person couldn't do that. He is very capable. And many of you know him, and you know that. What was radicalizing, very shocking, and very disturbing for me, was the city of Moscow, where I'd never been. The biggest City in Europe, 13,000,000 people.
And it is so much nicer than any city in my country. I had no idea. My father spent a lot of time there in the eighties when he worked for the US government and barely had And now, it is so much cleaner, and safer, and prettier, aesthetically. It's architecture, it's food, it's service. Then any city in the United States that you have to and this is non ideological how did that happen?
How did that happen? And at a certain point, I don't think the average person cares as much about abstractions as about the concrete reality of his life. And if you can't use your subway, for As many people are afraid to in New York City, because it's too dangerous, you have to sort of wonder, like, isn't that the ultimate measure of leadership? And that's true by the way, it's radicalizing for an American to go to Moscow. I didn't know that, I've learned it this week.
To Singapore, to Tokyo, to Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Because these cities, no matter how we're told they're run, and on what principles they're run, are wonderful places to live. They don't have rampant inflation, where you're not gonna get raped.
Speaker 1: Sir, excuse me.
Speaker 0: What is that?
Speaker 1: Excuse me. Are you Anti American model?
Speaker 0: No. I am the most pro American. So I'm 54. I was born in 1969. I grew up a country that had cities like Moscow and Abu Dhabi and Dubai and Singapore and Tokyo, and we no longer have them.
And what I have discovered is that's a voluntary choice. As inflation is, as you heard in that fascinating last panel, inflation is the product of choices made mostly by the central bank, not exclusively, but by policy makers. Crime. Same. You don't have to have crime, actually, if you don't put My children don't smoke marijuana at the breakfast table.
Why? Because I won't allow them. It's very simple. It's a short conversation. No.
And you can run your country the same way. We're not gonna put up with that, so don't do it. And people understand that. Filth, graffiti, Paris, one of my favorite cities, New York, one of my favorite cities, are filthy. And part of the reason they're filthy is because people spray paint obscenities on buildings and no cleans it up.
So that encourages more people to do the same. And our policy makers, for some reason, don't notice this. London, another one of my favorite cities. You see English girls begging for drugs on the sidewalk. And I thought to myself, if I'm Boris Johnson, who briefly and very badly ran that country, I would ask myself, like, wait a second.
My countrymen are begging for drugs on the street. Maybe I should do something about that. But now, he'll show up and give some speech about Ukraine and how we need to send, you know, more Bostrombombs to the brain.
Speaker 1: Now you
Speaker 0: What are you doing?
Speaker 1: You mentioned Ukraine. By talking to this gentleman, President Putin, for this lengthy interview, my question is, did you had coffee with him? Did you have any Of the record discussion before the interview? After. Did you feel during the interview or before or after That this man can make or is willing to do a historical compromise, number 1, on the, status of the world With the US, and number 2, about Ukraine, is he a compromiser?
Yes or no?
Speaker 0: Of course. Right? I mean, the leaders of every country on the planet, other than maybe the United States, during the unipolar period, are forced by the nature of their jobs to compromise. Compromise is part of that's what diplomacy is. And he's among those.
His position is clearly hardening. Russia has been rebuffed by the West. I mean, Vladimir Putin, this is not I'm not flacking for Putin. I'm an American. I'm not gonna live in Russia.
I don't love Vladimir Putin. I'm I'm stating the facts. He asked Bill Clinton to join NATO. He tried to make a missile deal
Speaker 1: He mentioned this in the interview. That's correct.
Speaker 0: And he's mentioned it in other forums as well. And NATO said, no, we don't want you. Now if the point of NATO, not if, the point of NATO originally, of course, the post war goal of NATO was to keep the Russians, the Soviets, from coming into Western Europe. It was a bull work against the Russians. So if the Russians actually joined the alliance, that would suggest you have solved the problem and you can move on to do something constructive with your life.
But we refused. And so, I mean, just meditate on that. Go sit in the sauna for an hour and think about what that means.
Speaker 1: Before sitting in the sauna, a question a question now. Final conclusion, you think that Vladimir Putin is eager for a compromise, a compromise like Yalta, Cycasbiko, the Ottoman Empire, several agreements, any international agreement to share Power and to share influence in the world with the west if there is somebody who is willing. And Biden administration wants tension, wants war, want to exert pressure on him so that they can Weaken his economy and weaken his alliance with with China. Is this is what you are reaching from your conclusions?
Speaker 0: My conclusions are in code. I mean, I've been thinking about this for a couple of years. I have a whole new set of data to mull over it. I'm not a genius, so it's going to take me a while to figure out what I think. But at this stage, 4 days later, I would say first of all, Yalta and Sykes Picot are 2 of the worst agreements ever struck.
So I hope whatever comes out of this is nothing like those. But, first things first. Putin wants to get out of this war. He's not going to, become more open to negotiation, the longer this goes on. One of the things we've learned in the course of the last 2 years is that Russia's industrial fill capacity, is a lot more profound than we thought it was.
I mean, Russia's having an e Russia, this country, we're assured, was a Gas station with nuclear weapons, has a pretty easy time making missiles, rockets and artillery shells, whereas NATO doesn't. So we should think about what that means, 1. 2, the West doesn't spend any time, or our policy in Washington spent no time thinking about like, what are the achievable goals here? I have heard personally, US government officials say, well, we're just gonna to return Crimea to Ukraine. Well, you don't need to be a Russia scholar.
So that's not going to happen, short of a nuclear war. That's insane, actually. So even to say something like that reveals that you're a child, you don't understand the area at all, and you have no real sense of what's possible. And so as long as our leaders, and not simply in the US, but NATO, and I really mean Germany, don't like, take the time to learn about possible is we're not gonna get anywhere.
Speaker 1: You think there is a big gap between the depths of understanding the philosophy of history between Biden And between Putin you you see Putin who have studied history and who is very deep in History. And he looks like he gave you a lecture in in for 30 minutes concerning the history of Ukraine and its relationship with The mother, Russia. Does Biden understand the law of action and reaction which moves a country like Russia?
Speaker 0: I can't overstate how incapacitated Joe Biden is. That's not an attack, that is a fact. And anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. So So these are not decisions Joe Biden is making. But there are capable people around Biden, and I know them.
What they lack is any perspective Tip at all. So a conversation with a US policy maker about the history of the region would begin and end with a conversation about, of course, Chamberlain and Churchill and Hitler. Period. So the American policy maker historical template is tiny. In fact, there's only 1.
And it's a 2 year period in the late 19 thirties. And everything is based on that understanding of history and human nature. And that's insane. And so, actually, American policymakers have convinced themselves that Vladimir Putin is going to take over Poland. And It is not a defense of Putin.
I don't mean to defend Putin. I'm not a fan of Putin's, and I'm not a subject to Putin's. I'm an American. However, there's no evidence that Putin has any interest in his borders. He is the largest country in the world.
And it's very hard to run. They don't need natural resources. There's nothing in Poland he wants. There's nothing he will gain by taking Poland, other than more trouble. That is if you're saying if you could have made Poland, you don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Here is a point a point in the interview when you asked him, are you Are you ready to to invade Poland?
Speaker 0: Are you in expansion of power yet?
Speaker 1: Expansion. Yes. In in in Poland, he said, Only if Poland launched
Speaker 0: a war Of course.
Speaker 1: On Russia. Okay? Ukraine did not launch a war on Russia, and he invaded Ukraine. Why you didn't follow-up on this question?
Speaker 0: I started with that question, actually. But he treated me to 35 minutes of Catherine the Great Okay. And the ruse. But no, the core question is why did he move his forces into Eastern Ukraine. And I watched this from a distant vantage in the United States, and I watched the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris, Go to the Munich Security Conference, just days before that, in February of 2022, and say in a public forum, at a press Conference.
To Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, we want you to join NATO. Which is another way of saying, it's a synonym for, we plan to put nuclear weapons un Russian.
Speaker 1: You think there's true abate for him?
Speaker 0: They've been joking. Of course they did.
Speaker 1: They threw
Speaker 0: a bait. And it just tells you how constipated Tricked it and censored. The US media landscape is, that I was the only one who said that. Well, wait a second. The purpose of diplomacy is to reach A peaceful, mutually one hopes beneficial conclusion to a crisis.
So if you're showing up voluntarily at the Munich Security Conference and Hey, Zelensky. Why don't you allow us to put nuclear weapons on Russia's border? You're cruising for a war because you know that's the red line. Because Putin has said that, And any close observer the area already knows?
Speaker 1: Now do you have an explanation, a reasonable explanation, why there is this Anti war and this very negative remarks about this interview from a lot of your colleagues and a lot of politicians in the world.
Speaker 0: One of the ways that I think I'm different is, I don't like the Internet. And, I haven't seen any of the reaction. And I would imagine, You know, I'm not the most popular person among my colleagues in the United States. I wouldn't have dinner with them anyway, so it's no great loss. But, You know, they I I can't imagine what their motives would be.
I didn't go to Russia, of course, to promote Vladimir Putin. And if I if that was my purpose, I'd say so, because I'm not embarrassed. I went because I felt that most Americans, in whose name all of this is being done, don't really know what's happening, and they know nothing about the guy they're supposedly at war with, unofficially. And I just felt that my job, if I have a job in this world, is to bring information to people so they can decide. And so I wanted to do the longest interview I could with Vladimir Putin, that contained the most amount of Vladimir Putin talking, not me grandstanding about what a great person I am.
When an American journalist interviews someone like Vladimir Putin, the whole point of the interview I'm a good person and you're not. And that interview was aimed at his colleagues in the newsrooms in the United States. I'm a good person. Why are you such a bad person? You're committing genocide.
Okay. That's not fruitful, and that's certainly not my role. I care what God thinks of me, what my wife thinks of me, and what my 4 children think of me, and that's all I care about. So I don't need to prove that I'm a good person. Wanna hear Vladimir Putin talk, so people in my country can assess what's happening.
Speaker 1: I That's it. I'll I'll I'll use the devil's advocate. But advocate away. Yes. Okay.
I'll tell you. You you should challenge in in in the rules of an interview, and you're a master in in your in your business. It's not for me to give you a lecture about that, but you should challenge some ideas. For instance, You you didn't talk about freedom of speech in in Russia. You did not talk about Navalny, About assassinations, about about the restrictions on, opposition in the coming Elections.
Speaker 0: I didn't talk about the things that every other American media outlet talks about. Why?
Speaker 1: Because, yes. Because those
Speaker 0: are covered. And because I have spent my life talking to people who run countries, in various countries, and have concluded the following, that every leader kills people, including my leader. Every leader kills people. Some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people.
Sorry. That's why I wouldn't want to be a leader. That Press restriction is universal in the United States. I know because I've lived it. I've, you know, asked my phone, you know, I've had a lot of jobs.
And I've done this for 34 years, and I know how it works. And, there's more censorship in Russia than there is in the United States, but there's a great deal in the United States. And so, you know, at a certain point, it's like people can decide whether they think, you know, what what countries they think are better, what systems they think are better. I just wanna know what he thinks. That was the whole point.
Speaker 1: Yes. I was very surprised, about an inappropriate remark. I I don't think it is Contains any of the, what you can call John TS or, niceties from, missus Clinton when she mentioned A phrase about you, I don't want to repeat it.
Speaker 0: Oh, you're not gonna hurt my feelings. Don't worry.
Speaker 1: Well well, gentleman, she she called this gentleman, just honorable Gentlemen that he is playing the role of a you say it.
Speaker 0: I I didn't see it.
Speaker 1: You didn't see it.
Speaker 0: She's a child. I don't listen to her.
Speaker 1: How's Libya doing? No. No. No. No.
No. Oh, okay. She she said, the the the the the the useful idiot. And and and if you see the interview, that has nothing to do with this at all. He was trying to get a testimony about the world as Putin sees it.
And this is Exactly what we need to know, how this man thinks. Either you consider him an enemy or you consider him a friend or you consider him a dictator, but you you should understand how the man Thanks. Now the You put
Speaker 0: it better than I could. That's a you just described my motive right there.
Speaker 1: Okay, sir. Now now now the the the question is if this is the that is that, as they say in the United States, and this is The the the, the power of media and the the way the media is becoming very biased in a deep state like America, where are we going in the model of democracy in the world?
Speaker 0: Media information In a free country is a counterbalance against entrenched power. Not just government power, but the economic power, business. It was, in my country, Constitutionally, it is designed to be to serve as a counterbalance to that. So if sources of information, media outlets To align with entrenched power, then you have a powerless population, and it's totalitarian. And that is very quickly, the direction the United States is headed.
And and I do think that technology abets this progression, and machine learning, especially. And so it's a perilous moment, if if it, you know, were Percie, purportedly. And a prerequisite for democracy is information, so that the electric can make up its mind and decide who to choose. And so if you don't have access to information, you don't have democracy. And we're in this sort of weird spiral, where our leaders lecture us ever more about democracy and how sacred it is, Even as they choke it off, choke it to death.
And so I think the people who provide information, who bring the facts to the public, have a critical role to play. And right now It's difficult. I'm not facing any great I I don't mean to cast myself as a hero. I'm certainly not a hero at all. But I do think it's Tougher and tougher to do that.
And that means we have a greater obligation to do it.
Speaker 1: Sir, do you have an explanation? Till this moment, since the Gaza Events took place till now. Nobody came out and said, how on earth the United States of America Is vetoing the the stoppage of, fire, how a country would veto Not to continue war. How how somebody is against stopping a war.
Speaker 0: The United States is, for this moment, is the most powerful country in the history of the world. So if you were to frame this in terms we're all familiar with, which are the most basic terms, the terms of the family, the United States would be DAP, would be the father. And the father's sacred obligation is to protect his family and to restore peace within his walls. So if I come home fortunately, if I come home from work and 2 of my kids are fighting, what's the first thing I do? Even before I assess why they're fighting, before I gather the facts and know what's happening
Speaker 1: I stop the fight.
Speaker 0: Stop fighting.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: So if I come home and I have 2 kids fighting and I say, go, go, beat the crap out of them. I am evil. Because I violated The most basic duty of fatherhood, which is to bring peace, because I have the power. I'm the only one who can bring peace. And so if you see a nation with Some power, abetting war for its own sake.
You have a leadership that has no moral authority, that is illegitimate. And I mean that too. And I and I not I'm not even referring to any specific region or conflict. I mean, generally. And I'm deeply offended by that.
Deeply. And and it's something that I try to express, and I'm often called a traitor for saying that. It's the opposite. I say that because I believe in the United States. I think it's a moral it has been a morally superior country.
And if we allow our leaders to use our power to spread destruction for its own sake, That is shameful. It's a binary. Okay? It's a it's a black and white. It's a 0 and a 1.
You are either creating or you're destroying. You're improving or you're degrading. And that's how you know whether something is good or bad, whether it's virtuous or evil. If you just judge the fruits. By its fruits, you will know it.
And I and I'm very distressed and concerned that we are entering an era where this awesome force for good is instead being used for evil.
Speaker 1: Two quick questions because I ran out of time. First question is, now in the American elections, we have probabilities. Yes. Either it's Biden and Trump, or Biden and somebody else not Trump, Or no Biden and no Trump and circumstances or fate get us 2 different People representing a republican or democrats. What do you think where are we going to reach?
Coming 19th November, Who will be running the show?
Speaker 0: I haven't. Honestly, I haven't the faintest idea. But I think there's volatility ahead in our political sphere. When clearly, there is because
Speaker 1: I I like you when you said, I I don't have an an idea. You you have this courage of to say that you don't know. You were telling me this morning that what one of the things which you like very much about here, our our president, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, god bless him, when you ask him a question, If he doesn't have an answer, he tell me, actually, I don't know the answer of this question.
Speaker 0: I've never heard a leader of anything, whether it's a country or a company or a soccer team, ever in my life, in a life spent interviewing people. I've never heard a single one of them say, you know, I don't I don't know the answer. It's very complicated. I haven't figured I've never heard anybody say that. And to me, that is the pure sign of wisdom.
Because wisdom grows from humility. Wisdom grows From the recognition that you are not God. And in the United States, we had a period where we were sort of, you know, having this debate about, Are some religions good and some religions bad? I'll tell you my view on it, and it's a hardened view. It's a sincere view.
I divide the world not between Muslim, Jew, She's a Buddhist. I divide the world between people who believe they're God, and people who know they're not. And the only people I trust are in the second category. Because that is the beginning of wisdom. When you know you are not God, that you cannot affect every change that you want, that you can't foresee the future, that you're not omnipotent, then you are much more likely to make good decisions, wise, humane decisions.
By contrast, when you believe you have the power To shape the world and other people, as we were hearing this morning, through biohacking. When you think you can create a better human being through technology, you're very dangerous. Because you don't understand your own limits. You will get a lot of people killed, when you when you have those false beliefs, in my opinion.
Speaker 1: By by this note, mister Carlson, thank you very much for Giving us this chance to come for the first time after your great interview To talk to the world through this podium and this country and my humble sir. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 0: Thank you for having me. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one gonna say Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@luskarusso - Luka
Entrevista completa de Vladimir Putin ao jornalista Tucker Carlson | LEGENDADO Disponível em meu Canal do Telegram. Obrigado pela sua inscrição: t.me/luskarusso https://t.co/qNrriw0I7q
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin's will." "NATO expansion eastward is a violation of the promise you all were made in 1990." "In 02/2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine." "Maidan and a coup in Ukraine." "denazification. After gaining independence, Ukraine began to search, as some Western analysts say, its identity." "The president of Ukraine stood up with the entire parliament of Canada and applauded this man." "the dollar is the cornerstone of The United States power." "BRICS countries accounted for only 16% in 1992, but now their share is greater than that of the G7." "the world should be a single whole, security should be shared, rather than a meant for the golden billion." "We are ready for negotiations indeed."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The following is an interview with the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, shot 02/06/2024 at about 7PM in the building behind us, which is, of course, the Kremlin. The interview, as you will see if you watch it, is primarily about the war in progress, the war in Ukraine, how it started, what's happening, and most presently, how it might end. One note before you watch. At the beginning of the interview, we asked the most obvious question, which is why did you do this? Did you feel a threat, an imminent physical threat?
And that's your justification. And the answer we got shocked us. Putin went on for a very long time, probably half an hour, about the history of Russia going back to the eighth century. And honestly, we thought this was a filibustering technique and found it annoying and interrupted him several times, and he responded he was annoyed, by the interruption. But we concluded in the end, for what worth, that it was not a filibustering technique.
There was no time limit on the interview. We ended it after more than two hours. Instead, what you're about to see seemed to us sincere, whether you agree with it or not. Vladimir Putin believes that Russia has a historic claim to parts of Western Ukraine. So our opinion would be to view it in that light as a sincere expression of what he thinks.
And with that, here it is. Mister president, thank you. On 02/22/2022, you addressed your country in a nationwide address when the conflict in Ukraine started, and you said that you were acting because you had come to the conclusion that The United States, through NATO, might initiate a surprise attack on our country. And to American ears, that sounds paranoid. Tell us why you believe The United States might strike Russia out of the blue.
How did you conclude that?
Speaker 1: It's not that America, The United States was going to launch a surprise strike I on didn't say that. Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?
Speaker 0: Here's the quote. Thank you. It's a formidable serious
Speaker 1: Because your basic education is in history as far as I understand. Yes. Mhmm. So if you don't mind, I will take only thirty seconds or one minute to give you a short reference to history for giving you a little historical background.
Speaker 0: Please.
Speaker 1: Let's look where our relationship with Ukraine started from. Where did Ukraine come from? The Russian state started gathering itself as a centralized statehood, and it is considered to be the year of the establishment of the Russian state in August, when the townspeople of Novgorod invited a Varangian prince, Rurik, from Scandinavia to reign. In 1862, Russia celebrated the one thousandth anniversary of its statehood. And in Novgorod, there is a memorial dedicated to the one thousandth anniversary of the country.
In 08/1982, Rurik's successor, Prince Oleg, who was actually playing the role of regent at Rurik's young son, because Rurik had died by that time, came to Kyiv. He ousted two brothers who apparently had once been members of Rurik's squad. So Russia began to develop with two centers of power, Kyiv and Novgorod. The next very significant date in the history of Russia was 09/1988. This was the baptism of Russia, when Prince Vladimir, the great grandson of Rurik, baptized Russia and adopted Orthodoxy, or Eastern Christianity.
From this time, the centralized Russian state began to strengthen. Why? Because of the single territory, integrated economic ties, one and the same language and, after the baptism of Russia, the same faith and rule of the prince. The centralized Russian state began to take shape. Back in the middle ages, Prince Yaroslav the Wise introduced the order of succession to a throne.
But after he passed away, it became complicated for various reasons. The throne was passed not directly from father to eldest son, but from the prince, who had passed away to his brother, then to his sons in different lines. All this led to the fragmentation and the end of Rus as a single state. There was nothing special about it. The same was happening then in Europe.
But the fragmented Russian state became an easy prey to the empire created earlier by King Ishan. His successors, namely Batuhan, came to ruse, plundered and ruined nearly all the cities. The southern part, including Kyiv, by the way, and some other cities, simply lost independence, while northern cities preserved some of their sovereignty. They had to pay tribute to the horde, but they managed to preserve some part of their sovereignty. And then a unified Russian state began to take shape with its center in Moscow.
The southern part of Russian lands, including Kyiv, began to gradually gravitate towards another magnet, the center that was emerging in Europe. This was the Grand Duchy Of Lithuania. It was even called the Lithuanian Russian Duchy, because Russians were a significant part of this population. They spoke the old Russian language and were orthodox. But then there was a unification, the union of the Grand Duchy Of Lithuania and the Kingdom Of Poland.
A few years later, another union was signed, but this time already in the religious sphere. Some of the Orthodox priests became subordinate to the pope. Thus, these lands became part of the Polish Lithuanian state. During decades, the Poles were engaged in the colonization of this part of the population. They introduced a language there, tried to entrench the idea that this population was not exactly Russians, that because they lived on the fringe, they were Ukrainians.
Originally, the word Ukrainian meant that the person was living on the outskirts of the state along the fringes or was engaged in a border patrol service. It didn't mean any particular ethnic group. So the Poles were trying to, in every possible way, to pollinize this part of the Russian lands and actually treated it rather harshly, not to say cruelly. All that led to the fact that this part of the Russian lands began to struggle for their rights. They wrote letters to Warsaw demanding that their rights be observed and people be commissioned here, including to Kyiv.
Speaker 0: I beg your pardon. Can you tell what period? I'm losing track of where in history we are. The Polish oppression, if you're correct.
Speaker 1: It was in the thirteenth century. Now I will tell you what happened later. And give the date so that there is no confusion. And in 1654, even a bit earlier, the people who were in control of the authority over that part of the Russian lands addressed Warsaw, I repeat, demanding that they send them to rulers of Russian origin and orthodox faith. When Warsaw did not answer them, and in fact rejected their demands, they turned to Moscow so that Moscow took them away.
So that you don't think that I'm inventing things, I'll give you these documents. Well, I I
Speaker 0: it doesn't sound like you're inventing it. I'm I'm not sure why it's relevant to what happened two
Speaker 1: years ago. But still, these are documents from the archives, copies. Here are the letters from Bogdan Khmelnytsky, the man who then controlled the power in this part of the Russian lands that is now called Ukraine. He wrote to Warsaw demanding that their rights be upheld, and after being refused, he began to write letters to Moscow, asking to take them under the strong hand of the Moscow tsar. There are copies of these documents.
I will leave them for your good memory. There is a translation into Russian, you can translate it into English later. Russia would not agree to admit them straight away, assuming that the war with Poland would start. Nevertheless, in 1654, the Pan Russian assembly of top clergy and landowners headed by the Tsar, which was the representative body of the power of the old Russian state, decided to include a part of the old Russian lands into Moscow Kingdom. As expected, the war with Poland began.
It lasted thirteen years and then in 1654, a truce was concluded. And thirty two years later, I think, a peace treaty with Poland, which they called eternal peace, was signed. In these lands, the whole Left Bank Of Dnieper, including Kyiv, went to Russia, and the whole Right Bank Of Dnieper remained in Poland. Under the rule of Katharina the Great, Russia reclaimed all of its historical lands, including in the South and West. This all lasted until the revolution.
Before World War one, Austrian general staff relied on the ideas of Ukrainianization and started actively promoting the ideas of Ukraine and the Ukrainianization. Their motive was obvious, Just before World War I, they wanted to weaken the potential enemy and secure themselves favorable conditions in the border area. So, the idea which had emerged in Poland that people residing in that territory were allegedly not really Russians, but rather belonged to a special ethnic group, Ukrainians, started being propagated by the Austrian general staff. As far back as the nineteenth century, theorists calling for Ukrainian independence appeared. All those, however, claimed that Ukraine should have a very good relationship with Russia.
They insisted on that After the nineteen seventeen revolution, the Bolsheviks sought to restore the statehood and the civil war began, including the hostilities with Poland. In 1921, peace with Poland was proclaimed and under that treaty, the right bank of Dnieper River once again was given back to Poland. In 1939, after Poland cooperated with Hitler, it did collaborate with Hitler, you know, Hitler offered Poland peace and a treaty of friendship, an alliance demanding in return that Poland give back to Germany the so called Danzig Corridor, which connected the bulk of Germany with East Prussia and After World War I, this territory was transferred to Poland, and instead of Danzig, a city of Dansk emerged. Hitler asked them to give it amicably, but they refused.
Speaker 0: Of course.
Speaker 1: Still, they collaborated with Hitler and engaged together in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia.
Speaker 0: May I ask you, you're making the case that that Ukraine, certainly parts of Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine is in in effect Russia, has been for hundreds of years. Why wouldn't you just take it when you became president twenty four years ago? You have nuclear weapons, they don't. If it's actually your land, why did you wait so long?
Speaker 1: I'll tell you. I'm coming to that. This briefing is coming to an end. It might be boring, but it You explains many
Speaker 0: just don't know how it's relevant.
Speaker 1: Good. Good. I'm so gratified that you appreciate that. Thank you. So, before World War II, Poland collaborated with Hitler, and although it did not yield to Hitler's demands, it still participated in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler, as the Poles had not given the Danzig Corridor to Germany and went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War two by attacking them.
Why was it Poland against whom the war started on first September nineteen thirty nine? Poland turned out to be uncompromising and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland. By the way, the USSR, I have read some archive documents, behaved very honestly. It asked Poland's permission to transit its troops through the Polish territory to help Czechoslovakia. But the then Polish foreign minister said that, if the Soviet plants flew over Poland, they would be downed over the territory of Poland, but that doesn't matter.
What matters is that the war began, and Poland fell prey to the policies it had pursued against Czechoslovakia, as under the well known Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. Part of the territory, including Western Ukraine, was to be given to Russia, thus Russia, which was then named as USSR, regained its historical lands. After the victory in the Great Patriotic War, as we call World War II, all those territories were ultimately enshrined as belonging to Russia, to the USSR. As for Poland, it received, apparently in compensation, the lands which had originally been German. The eastern parts of Germany, these are now western lands of Poland.
Of course, Poland regained access to the Baltic Sea and Danzig, which was once again given its Polish name. So this was how this situation developed. In 1922, when the USSR was being established, the Polish started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before. Right. Stalin insisted that those republics be included in the USSR as autonomous entities.
For some inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR. And again, for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic Of Ukraine some of the lands together with people living there, even though those lands had never been called Ukraine, and yet, they were made part of that Soviet Republic Of Ukraine. Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great, and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever. Even if we go as far back as 1654, when these lands returned to Russian Empire, that territory was the size of three to four regions of modern Ukraine, with no Black Sea region. That was completely out of the question.
Speaker 0: In 1654.
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 0: You obviously have encyclopedic knowledge of this region, but why didn't you make this case for the first twenty two years as president that Ukraine wasn't a real country?
Speaker 1: The Soviet Union was given a great deal of territory that had never belonged to it, including the Black Sea region. At some point, when Russia received them as an outcome of the Russo Turkish wars, they were called new Russia or Novorossiya. But that does not matter. What matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, established Ukraine that way. For decades, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR, and for unknown reasons, the Bolsheviks were engaged in Ukrainianization.
It was not merely because the Soviet leadership was composed to a great extent of those originating from Ukraine, rather, it was explained by the general policy of indigenization pursued by the Soviet Union. Same things were done in other Soviet Republics, this involved promoting national languages and national cultures, which is not a bad in principle, that is how the Soviet Ukraine was created. After the World War II, Ukraine received, in addition to the lands that had belonged to Poland before the war, part of the lands that had previously belonged to Hungary and Romania. So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the Soviet Ukraine, and they still remain part of Ukraine. So in this sense, we have every reason to affirm that Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin's will.
Speaker 0: Do you believe Hungary has a right to take its land back from Ukraine and that other nations have a right to go back to their sixteen fifty four borders?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure whether they should go back to the sixteen fifty four borders. But given Stalin's time, so called Stalin's regime, which as many claim, saw numerous violations of human rights and violations of the rights of other states. One may say that they could claim back those lands of theirs while having no right to do that. It is at least understandable.
Speaker 0: Have you told Viktor Orban that he can have part of Ukraine?
Speaker 1: Never. I've never told him. Not a single time. We have not even had any conversation on that, but I actually know for sure that Hungarians who live there wanted to get back to their historical land. Moreover, I would like to share a very interesting story with you.
I digress, it's a personal one. Somewhere in the early eighties, I went on a road trip in a car from then Leningrad across the Soviet Union through Kyiv, made a stop in Kyiv and then went to Western Ukraine. I went to the town of Birigavoye, and all the names of towns and villages there were in Russian and in the language I did not understand, in Hungarian, in Russian and in Hungarian, not in Ukrainian, in Russian and in Hungarian. I was driving through some kind of village and there were men sitting next to the houses and they were wearing black three piece suits and black cylinder hats. I asked, are they some kind of entertainers?
I was told, no, they were not entertainers, they are Hungarians. I said, what are they doing here? What do you mean? This is their land, they live This was during the Soviet time in the nineteen eighties. They preserved the Hungarian language, Hungarian names and all their national costumes.
They are Hungarians, and they feel themselves to be Hungarians. And, of course, when now there is an infringement
Speaker 0: Well, that is and there's a lot of that, though. Think many nations are upset about Transylvania as well, as you obviously know. But many nations feel frustrated by the redrawn borders of the wars of the twentieth and wars going back a thousand years, the ones that you But the fact is that you didn't make this case in public until two years ago, February. And in the case that you made, which I read today
Speaker 1: Just question.
Speaker 0: You you explain at great length that you felt a physical threat from the West in NATO, including potentially a nuclear threat, and that's what got you to move. Is that a fair characterization of what you said?
Speaker 1: I understand that my long speeches probably fall outside of the genre of the interview. That is why I asked you at the beginning, are we going to have a serious talk or a show? You said a serious talk. So, bear with me, please. We are coming to the point where the Soviet Ukraine was established.
Then, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed, and everything that Russia had generously bestowed on Ukraine was dragged away by the latter. I'm coming to a very important point of today's agenda. Thank you. After all, the collapse of the Soviet Union was effectively initiated by the Russian leadership. I do not understand what the Russian leadership was guided by at the time, but I suspect there were several reasons to think everything would be fine.
First, I think that then Russian leadership believed that the fundamentals of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine were, in fact, a common language, more than 90% of the population there spoke Russian. Family ties, every third person there had some kind of family or friendship ties. Common culture, common history, finally, common faith, coexistence with a single state for centuries, and deeply interconnected economies. All of these were so fundamental. All these elements together make our good relationships inevitable.
The second point is a very important one. I want you, as an American citizen and your viewers, to hear about this as well. The former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist, and therefore, there were no longer any ideological dividing lines. Russia even agreed voluntarily and proactively to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and believed that this would be understood by the so called civilized West, as an invitation for cooperation and association. That is what Russia was expecting, both from The United States and the so called collective West as a whole.
There were smart people, including in Germany, Egon Barr, a major politician of the Social Democratic Party, who insisted in his personal conversations with the Soviet leadership on the brink of the collapse of the Soviet Union, that a new security system should be established in Europe. Help should be given to unify Germany, but a new system should be also established to include The United States, Canada, Russia, and other Central European countries. Yes. But NATO needs not to expand. That's what he said.
If NATO expands, everything would be just the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia's borders. That's all. He was a wise old man, but no one listened to him. In fact, he got angry once. If he said, you don't listen to me, I'm never setting my foot in Moscow once again.
Everything happened just as he had said.
Speaker 0: Well, of course, did come true. And you've mentioned this many times, I think it's a fair point, and many in America thought that relations between Russia and The United States would be fine with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, that the opposite happened. But you've never explained why you think that happened except to say that the West fears a strong Russia, but we have a strong China the West does not seem very afraid of. What about Russia do you think convinced policymakers they had to take it down?
Speaker 1: The West is afraid of strong China more than it fears a strong Russia. Because Russia has one fifty million people, and China has 1,500,000,000 population, and its economy is growing by leaps and bounds, or 5% a year, it used to be even more. But that's enough for China. As Bismarck once put it, potentials are the most important. China's potential is enormous, it is the biggest economy in the world today in terms of purchasing power parity and the size of the economy.
It has already overtaken The United States quite a long time ago, and it is growing at a rapid clip. Let's not talk about who is afraid of whom, let's not reason in such terms. And let's get into the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of civilized nations, nothing like this happened. You tricked us. I don't mean you personally when I say you.
Of course, I'm talking about The United States. The promise was that NATO would not expand eastward, but it happened five times. There were five waves of expansion. We tolerated all that, we were trying to persuade them, we were saying, please don't, we are as bourgeois now as you are, we are market economy and there is no communist party power, let's negotiate. Moreover, I have also said this publicly before, there was a moment when a certain rift started growing between us.
Before that, Yeltsin came to The United States, remember, he spoke in congress and said the good words, God bless America, everything he said were signals, let us in. Remember the developments in Yugoslavia, before the Iltsin was lavished with praise? As soon as developments in Yugoslavia started, he raised his voice in support of Serbs, and we couldn't but raise our voices for Serbs in their defense. I understand that there were complex processes underway there, I do. But Russia could not help raising its voice in support of Serbs, because Serbs are also a special and close to us nation, with orthodox culture and so on.
It's a nation that has suffered so much for generations. Well, regardless, what is important is that Yeltsin expressed his support. What did The United States do? In violation of an international law and the UN Charter, it started bombing Belgrade. It was The United States that led the genie out of the bottom.
Moreover, when Russia protested and expressed its resentment, what was said, the UN Charter and international law have become obsolete. Now, everyone invokes international law, but at that time they started saying that everything was outdated, everything had to be changed. Indeed, some things need to be changed, as the balance of power has changed, it's true, but not in this manner. Ilson was immediately dragged through the mud, accused of alcoholism, of understanding nothing, of knowing nothing. He understood everything, I assure you.
Well, I became president in February. I thought, okay, the Yugoslav issue is over, but we should try to restore relations. Let's reopen the door that Russia had tried to go through. And moreover, I said it publicly, I can reiterate. At a meeting here in the Kremlin with the outgoing president Bill Clinton, right here in the next room, I said to him, I asked him, Bill, you think if Russia asked to join NATO, do you think it would happen?
Suddenly he said, you know, it's interesting. I think so. But in the evening, when we met for dinner, he said, you know, I've talked to my team. No, no. It's not possible now.
You can ask him. I think he will watch our interview. He'll confirm I wouldn't have said anything like that if it hadn't happened.
Speaker 0: Were you sincere?
Speaker 1: It's impossible now.
Speaker 0: Would you have joined NATO?
Speaker 1: Look, I asked the question, is it possible or not? And the answer I got was no. If I was insincere in my desire to find out what the leadership position was
Speaker 0: But if he had said yes, would you have joined NATO?
Speaker 1: If he had said yes, the process of reproachment would have commenced, and eventually, it might have happened if we had seen some sincere wish on the other side of our partners. But it didn't happen. Well, no means no. Okay, fine.
Speaker 0: Why do you think that is? Just to get to motive. I know you're clearly bitter about it. I understand. But why do you think the West rebuffed you then?
Why the hostility? Why did the end of the Cold War not fix the relationship? What motivates this from your point of view?
Speaker 1: You said I was bitter about the answer. No, it's not bitterness. It's just a statement of fact. We are not bride and groom, bitterness, resentment. It's not about those kind of matters in such circumstances.
We just realized we weren't welcome there, that's all. Fine. But let's build relations in another manner, let's look for common ground elsewhere. Why we receive such a negative response, you should ask your leaders. I can only guess why, too big a country with its own opinion and so on.
In The United States, I've seen how issues are being resolved in NATO. I will give you another example now concerning Ukraine. The US leadership exerts pressure, and all NATO members obediently vote, even if they do not like something. Now, I'll tell you what happened in this regard with Ukraine in 02/2008, although it's being discussed. I'm not going to open a secret to you, say anything Nevertheless, after that we tried to build relations in different ways.
For example, the events in The Middle East, in Iraq, We were building relations with The United States in a very soft, prudent, cautious manner. I repeatedly raised the issue that The United States should not support separatism or terrorism in the North Caucasus, But they continue to do it anyway. And political support, information support, financial support, even military support came from The United States and its satellites for terrorist groups in the Caucasus. I once raised this issue with my colleague, also the president of The United States. He says, it's impossible, do you have proof?
I said yes. I was prepared for this conversation and I gave him that proof. He looked at it, and you know what he said? I apologize, but that's what happened. I'll quote.
He says: Well, I'm gonna kick their ass. We waited and waited for some response, there was no reply. I said to the FSB director, write to the CIA, what is the result of the conversation with president. He wrote once, twice, and then we got a reply. We have the answer in the archive.
The CIA replied, we have been working with the opposition in Russia. We believe that this is the right thing to do, and we will keep on doing it. Just ridiculous. Well, okay. We realized that it was out of the question.
Speaker 0: Forces in opposition to you. So you're saying the CA is trying to overthrow your government?
Speaker 1: Of course, they meant in that particular case the separatists, the terrorists who fought with us in the Caucasus. That's who they called the opposition. This is the second point. The third moment is a very important one, is the moment when The US missile defense system was created. The beginning.
We persuaded for a long time not to do it in United States. Moreover, after was invited by Bush Jr. Father, Bush Sr, to visit his place on the ocean, I had a very serious conversation with President Bush and his team. I propose that The United States, Russia and Europe jointly create a missile defense system that, we believe, if created unilaterally, threatens our security, despite the fact that The United States officially said that it was being created against missile threats from Iran. That was the justification for the deployment of the missile defense system.
I suggested working together, Russia, The United States and Europe. They said it was very interesting. They asked me, are you serious? I said, absolutely.
Speaker 0: May I ask what year was this?
Speaker 1: I don't remember. It is easy to find out on the Internet, when I was in The USA at the invitation of Bush senior. It is even easier to learn from someone I'm going to tell you about. I was told it was very interesting. I said, just imagine if we could tackle such a global strategic security challenge together.
The world will change. We'll probably have disputes, probably economic and even political ones, but we could drastically change the situation in the world. He says yes, and asks, are you serious? I said, of course, we need to think about it until. I said, go ahead, please.
Then secretary of defense Gates, former director of CIA, and secretary of state Rice came in here in this cabinet, right here at this table. They sat on this table. Me, the foreign minister, the Russian defense minister on that side, they said to me, yes, we have thought about it, we agree. I said, thank God, great, but with some exceptions.
Speaker 0: So, twice you've described US Presidents making decisions and then being undercut by their agency heads. So it sounds like you're describing a system that's not run by the people who are elected, in your telling.
Speaker 1: That's right. That's right. In the end, they just told us to get lost. I'm not going to tell you the details because I think it's incorrect. After all, it was confidential conversation.
But our proposal was declined, that's a fact. It was right then when I said, look, but then we will be forced to take countermeasures. We will create such strike systems that will certainly overcome missile defense systems. The answer was, we are not doing this against you and you do what you want, assuming that it is not against us, not against The United States. I said, okay, very well, that's the way it went.
And we created hypersonic systems with intercontinental range, and we continue to develop them. We are now ahead of everyone, The United States and the other countries, in terms of the development of hypersonic strike systems, and we are improving them every day. But it wasn't us, we proposed to go the other way, and we were pushed back. About NATO's expansion to the East. Well, we were promised no NATO to the East, not an inch to the East, as we were told, and then what?
They said, well, it's not enshrined on paper, so we'll expand. So there were five waves of expansion, the Baltic States, the whole of Eastern Europe and so on. And now I come to the main thing, they have come to the Ukraine ultimately. In 02/2008, at the summit in Bucharest, they declared that the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO were open. Now about how decisions are made there.
Germany, France seem to be against it, as well as some other European countries. But then, as it turned out, later, President Bush, and he's such a tough guy, a tough politician, as I was told later, he exerted pressure on us and we had to agree. It's ridiculous, it's like kindergarten. Where are the guarantees? What kindergarten is this?
What kind of people are these? Who are they? You see, they were pressed, they agreed. And then they say, Ukraine won't be in the NATO, you know? I say, I don't know.
I know you agreed in 02/2008, why won't you agree in the future? Well, they pressed us then, I say, why won't they press you tomorrow? And you'll agree again. Well, it's nonsensical. Who's there to talk to?
I just don't understand. We're ready to talk. But with whom? Where are the guarantees? None.
So they started to develop the territory of Ukraine. Whatever is there, I have told you the background, how this territory developed, what kind of relations they were with Russia. Every second or third person there has always had some ties with Russia. And during the elections in already independent sovereign Ukraine, which gained its independence as a result of the declaration of independence, And by the way, it says that Ukraine is a neutral state, and in 02/2008, suddenly, the doors or gates to NATO were open to it. Oh, come on.
This is not how we agreed. Now all the presidents that have come to power in Ukraine, they relied on electorate with a good attitude to Russia in one way or the other. This is the Southeast Of Ukraine. This is a large number of people. And it was very difficult to persuade this electorate, which had a positive attitude towards Russia.
Viktor Yanukovych came to power, and how? The first time he won after President Kuchma, they organized a third round, which is not provided for in the constitution of Ukraine. This is a coup d'etat. Just imagine, someone in The United States wouldn't like the outcome.
Speaker 0: In 2014.
Speaker 1: Before that. No, this was before that, after President Kuchma Viktor Yanukovych won the elections. However, his opponents did not recognize that victory. Supported the opposition and the third round was scheduled. What is this?
This is a coup, The US supported it and the winner of the third round came to power. Imagine if in The US something was not to someone's liking and the third round of election, which The US constitution does not provide for, was organized. Nonetheless, it was done in Ukraine. Okay, Viktor Yushchenko, who was considered a pro western politician, came to power. Fine, we have built relations with him as well.
He came to Moscow with visits. We visited Kyiv, I visited Zoo. We met in an informal setting. If he is pro western, so be it. It's fine, let people do their job.
The situation should have developed inside independent Ukraine itself. As a result of Kuchma's leadership, things got worse and Viktor Yanukovych came to power after all. Maybe he wasn't the best president and politician, I don't know. I don't want to give assessments. However, the issue of the association with the EU came up.
We have always been lenient to this, suit yourself. But when we read through the treaty of association, it turned out to be a problem for us, since we had the free trade zone and open customs borders with Ukraine, which under this association had to open its borders for Europe, which could have led to flooding of our markets. Said, no, this is not going to work, We shall close our borders with Ukraine then. The customs borders, that is. Yanukovych started to calculate how much Ukraine was going to gain, how much to lose, and said to his European partners, I need more time to think before signing.
The moment he said that, the opposition began to take destructive steps, which were supported by the West. It all came down to Maidan and a coup in Ukraine.
Speaker 0: So he did more trade with Russia than with the EU? Ukraine did.
Speaker 1: Of course. It's not even the matter of trade volume, although for the most part it is. It is the matter of cooperation size, which the entire Ukrainian economy was based on. The cooperation ties between the enterprises were very close since the times of the Soviet Union. One enterprise there used to produce components to be assembled both in Russia and Ukraine, and vice versa.
They used to be very close ties. A coup d'etat was committed, although I shall not delve into details now, as I find doing it inappropriate, The US told us. Calm Yanukovych down, and we will calm the opposition. Let the situation unfold in the scenario of a political settlement. We said, alright, agreed, let's do it this way.
As the Americans requested, Yanukovych did use neither the armed forces nor the police, yet the armed opposition committed a coup in Kyiv. What is that supposed to mean? Who do you think you are? I wanted to ask the then US leadership.
Speaker 0: With the backing of whom?
Speaker 1: With the backing of CIA, of course. The organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand. We should thank God they didn't let you in. Although, it is a serious organization. I understand.
My former vis a vis in the sense that I served in the first main directorate, Soviet Union's intelligence service. They have always been our opponents. A job is a job. Technically, they did everything right, they achieved their goal of changing the government. However, from political standpoint, it was a colossal mistake.
Surely, was political leadership's miscalculation, they should have seen what it would evolve into. So, in 02/2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 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 All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO's doors. How could we not express concern over what was happening? From our side, this would have been a culpable negligence.
That's what it would have been. It's just that The U. S. Political leadership pushed us to the line we could not cross, because doing so could have ruined Russia itself. Besides, we could not leave our brothers in faith, in fact, a part of Russian people in the face of this war machine.
Speaker 0: What was the so but that was eight years before the current conflict started. So what was the trigger for you? What was the moment where you decided you had to do this?
Speaker 1: Initially, it was the coup in Ukraine that provoked the conflict. By the way, back then the representatives of three European countries, Germany, Poland and France, arrived. They were the guarantors of the signed agreement between the government of Yanukovych and the opposition. They signed it as guarantors. Despite that, the opposition committed a coup and all these countries pretended that they didn't remember that they were guarantors of the peaceful settlement.
They just threw it in the stove right away and nobody recalls that. I don't know if The US know anything about the agreement between the opposition and the authorities and its three guarantors who, instead of bringing this whole situation back in the political field, supported the coup. Although it was meaningless, believe me. Because President Yanukovych agreed to all conditions, he was ready to hold an early election which he had no chance of winning, frankly speaking. Everyone knew that.
Then why the coup? Why the victims? Why threatening Crimea? Why launching an operation in Donbas? This I do not understand.
That is exactly what the miscalculation is. CIA did its job to complete the coup. I think one of the deputy secretaries of state said that it cost a large sum of money, almost 5,000,000,000, but the political mistake was colossal. Why would they have to do that? All this could have been done legally, without victims, without military action, without losing Crimea.
We would have never considered to even lift a finger if it hadn't been for the bloody developments on Maidan. Because we agreed with the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, our borders should be along the borders of former unions' republics. We agreed to that. But we never agreed to NATO's expansion, and moreover, we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO. We did not agree to NATO bases there without any discussion with us.
For decades, we kept asking, don't do this, don't do that. And what triggered the latest events? Firstly, the current Ukrainian leadership declared that it would not implement the Minsk agreements, which had been signed, as you know, after the events of 2014 in Minsk, where the plan of peaceful settlement in Donbas was set forth. But no, the current Ukrainian leadership, foreign minister, all other officials, and then president himself said that they don't like anything about the Minsk agreements. In other words, they were not going to implement it.
A year or a year and a half ago, former leaders of Germany and France said openly to the whole world that they indeed signed the Minsk agreements, but they never intended to implement them. They simply led us by the nose.
Speaker 0: Was there anyone free to talk to? Did you call a US president, secretary of state and say, if you keep militarizing Ukraine with NATO forces, this is gonna get this is gonna be a we're gonna act.
Speaker 1: We talked about this all the time. We addressed The United States and European countries' leadership to stop these developments immediately, to implement the Minsk agreements. Frankly speaking, I didn't know how we were going to do this, but I was ready to implement them. These agreements were complicated for Ukraine, they included lots of elements of those Donbas territories' independence, that's true. However, I was absolutely confident and I'm saying this to you now, I honestly believe that if we managed to convince the residents of Donbas, and we had to work hard to convince them to return to the Ukrainian statehood, then gradually the wounds would start to heal.
When this part of territory reintegrated itself into common social environment, when the pensions and social benefits were paid again, all the pieces would gradually fall into place. No, nobody wanted that. Everybody wanted to resolve the issue by military force only, but we could not let that happen. And the situation got to the point when the Ukrainian side announced, no, we will not do anything. They also started preparing for military action.
It was they who started the war in 2014. Our goal is to stop this war. And we did not start this war in 2022. This is an attempt to stop it.
Speaker 0: Do you think you've stopped it now? I mean, have you achieved your aims?
Speaker 1: No, we haven't achieved our aims yet, because one of them is denazification. This means the prohibition of all kinds of neo Nazi movements. This is one of the problems that we discussed during the negotiation process, which ended in Istanbul early this year. And it was not our initiative, because we were told by the Europeans, in particular, that it was necessary to create conditions for the final signing of the documents. My counterparts in France and Germany said: How can you imagine them signing a treaty with a gun to their heads?
The troops should be pulled back from Kyiv. I said: Alright, we withdrew the troops from Kyiv. As soon as we pulled back our troops from Kyiv, our Ukrainian negotiators immediately threw all our agreements reached in Istanbul into the bin, and got prepared for a long standing armed confrontation with the help of The United States and its satellites in Europe. That is how the situation has developed, and that is how it looks now.
Speaker 0: What is denazification? What would that mean?
Speaker 1: That is what I want to talk about right now. It is a very important issue. Denazification. After gaining independence, Ukraine began to search, as some Western analysts say, its identity. And it came up with nothing better than to build this identity upon some false heroes who collaborated with Hitler.
I have already said that in the early nineteenth century, when the theorists of independence and sovereignty of Ukraine appeared, they assumed that an independent Ukraine should have very good relations with Russia. But due to the historical development, those territories were part of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, Poland, where Ukrainians were persecuted and treated quite brutally as well as were subject to cruel behavior. There were also attempts to destroy their identity, All this remained in the memory of the people. When World War II broke out, part of this extremely nationalist elite collaborated with Hitler, believing that he would bring them freedom. The German troops, even the SS troops, made Hitler's collaborators do the dirtiest work of exterminating the Polish and Jewish population.
Hence, this brutal massacre of the Polish and Jewish population, as well as the Russian population too. This was led by the persons who are well known Bandera, Shekevich. It was those people who were made national heroes, that is the problem. We are constantly told that nationalism and neo Nazism exist in other countries as well. Yes, they are seedlings, but we approve them, and other countries fight against them.
But Ukraine is not the case, these people have been made into national heroes in Ukraine, monuments to those people have been erected, they are displayed on flags, their names are shouted by crowds that walk with torches, as it was in Nazi Germany. These were people who exterminated Poles, Jews and Russians. It is necessary to stop this practice and prevent the dissemination of this concept. I say that Ukrainians are part of the one Russian people. They say, No, we are a separate people.
Okay, fine. If they consider themselves a separate people, they have the right to do so. But not on the basis of Nazism, the Nazi ideology.
Speaker 0: Would you be satisfied with the territory that you have now?
Speaker 1: I will finish answering the question. You just asked a question about neo Nazism and denazification. Look, the president of Ukraine visited Canada, the story is well known, but being silenced in the Western countries. The Canadian parliament introduced a man, who, as the speaker of the parliament said, fought against the Russians during the World War II. Well, who fought against the Russians during the World War II?
Hitler and his accomplices. It turned out that this man served in the SS troops, he personally killed Russians, Poles and Jews. The SS troops consisted of Ukrainian nationalists who did this dirty work. The president of Ukraine stood up with the entire parliament of Canada and applauded this man. How can this be imagined?
The President of Ukraine himself, by the way, is a Jew by nationality.
Speaker 0: Really my question is what do you do about it? I mean, Hitler's been dead for eighty years, Nazi Germany no longer exists, And so true. And so I think what you're saying is you want to extinguish or at least control Ukrainian nationalism, but how? How do you do that?
Speaker 1: Listen to me. Your question is very subtle, and I can tell you what I think. Do not take offense. Of course. This question appears to be subtle.
It is quite pesky. You say Hitler has been dead for so many years, eighty years, but his example lives on. People who exterminated Jews, Russians, and Poles are alive. And the president, the current president of today's Ukraine, applauds him in the Canadian parliament, gives a standing ovation. Can we say that we have completely uprooted this ideology if what we see is happening today?
That is what denazification is in our understanding. We have to get rid of those people who maintain this concept and support this practice, and try to preserve it. That is what denazification is. That is what we mean.
Speaker 0: Right, my question was a little more specific. It was, of course, not a defense of Nazis, neo or otherwise. It was a practical question. You don't control the entire country. You don't control Kiev.
You don't seem like you want to. So how do you eliminate a culture or an ideology or feelings or a view of history in a country that you don't control? What do you do about that?
Speaker 1: You know, as strange as it may seem to you, during the negotiations at Istanbul, we did agree that we have it all in writing. Neo Nazism would not be cultivated in Ukraine, including that it would be prohibited at the legislative level. Mr. Carson, we agreed on that. This, it turns out, can be done during the negotiation process.
And there is nothing humiliating for Ukraine as a modern civilized state. Is any state allowed to promote Nazism? It is not, is it? That is it.
Speaker 0: Will there be talks, and why haven't there been talks, about resolving the conflict in Ukraine, peace talks?
Speaker 1: They have been. They reached a very high stage of coordination of positions in a complex process, but still they were almost finalized. But after we withdrew our troops from Kyiv, as I have already said, the other side threw away all these agreements and obeyed the instructions of western countries, European countries, and The United States to fight Russia to the bitter end. Moreover, the president Ukraine has legislated a ban on negotiating with Russia. He signed a decree forbidding everyone to negotiate with Russia.
But how are we going to negotiate if he forbade himself and everyone to do this? We know that he is putting forward some ideas about this settlement, but in order to agree on something, we need to have a dialogue. Is that not right?
Speaker 0: Well, but you wouldn't be speaking to the Ukrainian president, you'd be speaking to the American president. When was the last time you spoke to Joe Biden?
Speaker 1: I cannot remember when I talked to him. I do not remember. We can look it up.
Speaker 0: You don't remember?
Speaker 1: No. Why? Do I have to remember everything? I have my own things to do, we have domestic political affairs.
Speaker 0: Well, he's funding the war that you're fighting, so I would think that would be memorable.
Speaker 1: Well, he funds, but I talked to him before the special military operation, of course. And I said to him then, by the way, I will not go into details, I never do, but I said to him then, I believe that you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there, in Ukraine by pushing Russia away. I told him, told him repeatedly, by the way. I think that would be correct if I stop here.
Speaker 0: What did he say?
Speaker 1: Ask him, please. It is easier for you. You are a citizen of The United States. Go and ask him. It is not appropriate for me to comment on our conversation.
Speaker 0: But but but you haven't spoken to him since before February 2022.
Speaker 1: No, we haven't spoken. Certain contacts are being maintained though. Speaking of which, do you remember what I told you about my proposal to work together on a missile defense system?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You can ask all of them, all of them are safe and sound, thank God. The former president, Condoleezza, is safe and sound, and I thank Mr. Gates and the current director of the intelligence agency, Mr. Burns, the then ambassador to Russia, in my opinion are very successful ambassador. They were all witnesses to these conversations.
Ask them. Same here. If you are interested in what mister president Biden responded to me, ask him. At any rate, I talk to him about it.
Speaker 0: I'm definitely interested, but from the outside, it seems like this could devolve or evolve into something that brings the entire world into conflict and could initiate a nuclear launch. And so why don't you just call Biden and say, let's work this out?
Speaker 1: What's there to work out? It's very simple. I repeat. We have contacts through various agencies. I will tell you what we are saying on this matter and what we are conveying to The US leadership.
If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks. That's it. And then we can agree on some terms. Before you do that, stop.
What's easier? Why would I call him? What should I talk to him about? Or beg him for what?
Speaker 0: And and what message is the message?
Speaker 1: You're going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine? Oh, I'm afraid. I'm afraid. Please don't. What is there to talk about?
Speaker 0: Do you think NATO is worried about this becoming a global war or a nuclear conflict?
Speaker 1: At least that's what they're talking about. And they're trying to intimidate their own population with an imaginary Russian threat. This is an obvious fact. And thinking people, not Philistines, but thinking people, analysts, those who are engaged in real politics, just smart people understand perfectly well that this is a fake. They're trying to fuel the Russian threat.
Speaker 0: The threat I think you're referring to is a Russian invasion of Poland, Latvia, expansionist behavior. Is can you imagine a scenario where you sent Russian troops to Poland?
Speaker 1: Only in one case, if Poland attacks Russia. Why? Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia, or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don't have any interest.
It's just threat mongering.
Speaker 0: Well, the argument, I know you know this, is that, well, he invaded Ukraine, he has territorial aims across the continent, and you're saying unequivocally you don't.
Speaker 1: It is absolutely out of the question. You just don't have to be any kind of analyst, it goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of a global war. And a global war will bring all humanity to the brink of destruction, it's obvious. They are certainly means of deterrence. They have been scaring everyone with us all along.
Tomorrow, Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons. Tomorrow, Russia will use that. No. The day after tomorrow. So what?
In order to extort additional money from US taxpayers and European taxpayers in the confrontation with Russia in the Ukrainian theater of war. The goal is to weaken Russia as much as possible. One
Speaker 0: of our senior United States senators from the state of New York, Chuck Schumer, said yesterday, I believe, that we have to continue to fund the Ukrainian effort or US soldiers, citizens could wind up fighting there. How do you assess that?
Speaker 1: This is a provocation, and a cheap provocation at that. I do not understand why American soldiers should fight in Ukraine. There are mercenaries from The United States there. The bigger number of mercenaries comes from Poland, with mercenaries from The United States in second place, and mercenaries from Georgia in third place. Well, if somebody has the desire to send regular troops, that would certainly bring humanity to the brink of very serious global conflict.
This is obvious. Do The United States need this? What for? Thousands of miles away from your national territory. Don't you have anything better to do?
You have issues on the border, issues with migration, issues with the national debt, more than $33,000,000,000,000 You have nothing better to do, so you should fight in Ukraine? Wouldn't it be better to negotiate with Russia, make an agreement, already understanding the situation that is developing today, realizing that Russia will fight for its interests to the end? And realizing this, actually return to common sense, start respecting our country and its interests, and look for certain solutions. It seems to me that this is much smarter and more rational.
Speaker 0: Who blew up Nord Stream?
Speaker 1: You for sure.
Speaker 0: I was busy that day. Nate, do you have I did not blow up Nord Stream. Thank you though.
Speaker 1: You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi.
Speaker 0: Do you have evidence that NATO or the CIA did it? You
Speaker 1: know, I won't get into details, but people always say in such cases, look for someone who is interested. But in this case, we should not only look for someone who is interested, but also for someone who has capabilities, because there may be many people interested, but not all of them are capable of sinking to the bottom of the Baltic Sea and carrying out this explosion. These two components should be connected. Who is interested and who is capable of doing it?
Speaker 0: But I'm confused. I mean, that's the biggest act of industrial terrorism ever, and it's the largest emission of CO2 in history. Okay, so if you had evidence and presumably given your security services, your intel services, you would, that NATO, The US, CIA, the West did this, why wouldn't you present it and win a propaganda victory?
Speaker 1: In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat The United States, because The United States controls all the world's media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. Don't you know that? So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information and we will not achieve results.
It is clear to the whole world what happened and even American analysts talk about it directly. It's true.
Speaker 0: Yes, but here's a question you may be able to answer. You worked in Germany, famously. The Germans clearly know that their NATO partner did this, and it damaged their economy greatly, it may never recover. Why are they being silent about it? That's very confusing to me.
Why wouldn't the Germans say something about it?
Speaker 1: This also confuses me. But today's German leadership is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than its national interests. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the logic of their action or inaction. After all, it is not only about Nord Stream 1, which was blown up, and the Nord Stream 2 was damaged, but one pipe is safe and sound, and gas can be supplied to Europe through it. But Germany does not open it.
We are ready, please. There's another route through Poland, called Yamal Europe, which also allows for large flow. Poland has closed it, but Poland pecks from the German hand, it receives money from the pan European funds, and Germany is the main donor to these pan European funds. Germany feeds Poland to the certain extent, and they closed their route to Germany. Why?
I don't understand. Ukraine, to which the Germans supply weapons and give money.
Speaker 0: Germany
Speaker 1: is the second sponsor of The United States in terms of financial aid to Ukraine. There are two gas routes through Ukraine. They simply closed one route. The Ukrainians open the second route and please get gas from Russia.
Speaker 0: They
Speaker 1: do not open it. Why don't the Germans say? Look guys, we give you money and weapons, open up the valve, please, let the gas from Russia pass through for us. We are buying liquified gas at exorbitant prices in Europe, which brings the level of our competitiveness and economy in general down to zero. Do you want us to give you money?
Let us have the decent existence, make money for our economy, because this is where the money we give you comes from. They refuse to do so. Why? Ask them. That is what is like in their heads.
Those are highly incompetent people.
Speaker 0: Well, maybe the world is breaking into two hemispheres, one with cheap energy, the other without, and I wanna ask you that. If we're now a multipolar world, obviously we are, can you describe the blocks of alliances? Who is in each side, do you think?
Speaker 1: Listen, you have said that the world is breaking into two hemispheres. A human brain is divided into two hemispheres. One is responsible for one type of activities, the other one is more about creativity and so on. But it is still one and the same head. The world should be a single whole, security should be shared, rather than a meant for the golden billion.
That is the only scenario where the world could be stable, sustainable and predictable. Until then, while the head is split in two parts, it is an illness, a serious adverse condition, it is a period of severe disease that the world is going through now. But I think that, thanks to honest journalism, this work is akin to work of the doctors, this could somehow be remedied.
Speaker 0: Well, let's just give one example. The US dollar, which has kind of united the world in a lot of ways, maybe not to your advantage, but certainly not ours. Is that going away as the reserve currency, common, the universe accepted currency? How have sanctions, do you think, changed the dollar's place in the world?
Speaker 1: You know, to use the dollar as a tool of foreign policy struggle is one of the biggest strategic mistakes made by The US political leadership. The dollar is the cornerstone of The United States power. I think everyone understands very well that no matter how many dollars are printed, they are quickly dispersed all over the world. Inflation in The United States is minimal, it's about three or 3.4%, which is, I think, totally acceptable for The US. But they won't stop printing.
What does the debt of $33,000,000,000,000 tell us about? It is about the emission. Nevertheless, it is the main weapon used by The United States to preserve its power across the world. As soon as the political leadership decided to use the US dollar as a tool of political struggle, a blow was dealt to this American power. I would not like to use any strong language, but it is a stupid thing to do and a grave mistake.
Look at what is going on in the world. Even The United States allies are now downsizing their dollar reserves. Seeing this, everyone starts looking for ways to protect themselves. But the fact that The United States applies restrictive measures to certain countries, such as placing restrictions on transactions, freezing assets, etcetera, causes great concern and sends a signal to the whole world. What did we have here?
Until 2022, about 80% of Russian foreign trade transactions were made in US dollars and euros. U. S. Dollars accounted for approximately 50% of our transactions with third countries, while currently it is down to 13%. It wasn't us who banned the use of the U.
S. Dollar. We had no such intention. It was decision of The United States to restrict our transactions in U. S.
Dollars. I think it is complete foolishness from the point of view of the interest of The United States itself and its taxpayers, as it damages The US economy, undermines the power of The United States across the world. By the way, our transactions in Yuan accounted for about 3%. Today, 34% of our transactions are made in rubles, and about as much, a little over 34% in yuan. Why did The United States do this?
My only guess is self conceit. They probably thought it would lead to full collapse, but nothing collapsed. Moreover, other countries, including oil producers, are thinking of and already accepting payments for oil in Yuan. Do you even realize what is going on or not? Does anyone in The United States realize this?
What are you doing? You're cutting yourself off. All experts say this. Ask any intelligent and thinking person in The United States what the dollar means for The US. You're killing it with your own hands.
Speaker 0: I think that's a fair assessment. The question is what comes next, and maybe you trade one colonial power for another much less sentimental and forgiving colonial power. I mean, the BRICS, for example, in danger of being completely dominated by the Chinese economy in a way that's not good for their sovereignty? Do you worry about that?
Speaker 1: We have heard those boogeyman stories before. It is a boogeyman story. We're neighbors with China. You cannot choose neighbors just as you cannot choose close relatives. We share a border of thousand kilometers with them.
This is number one. Second, we have a centuries long history of coexistence. We're used to it. Third, China's foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive. Its idea is to always look for compromise, and we can see that.
The next point is as follows. We are always told the same boogeyman story, and here it goes again, through an euphemistic form, but it is still the same boogeyman story. The cooperation with China keeps increasing, the pace at which China's cooperation with Europe is growing is higher and greater than that of the growth of Chinese Russian cooperation. Ask Europeans, aren't they afraid? They might be, I don't know.
But they are still trying to access China's market at all costs, especially now that they are facing economic problems. Chinese businesses are also exploring the European market. Do Chinese businesses have small presence in The United States? Yes, the political decisions are such that they are trying to limit their cooperation with China. It is to your own detriment, mister Tucker, that you are limiting cooperation with China.
You are hurting yourself. It is a delicate matter, and there are no silver bullet solutions, just as it is with the dollar. So before introducing any illegitimate sanctions, illegitimate in terms of the charter of the United Nations, one should think very carefully. For decision makers, this appears to be a problem.
Speaker 0: So you said a moment ago that the world would be a lot better if it weren't broken into competing alliances, if there was cooperation globally. One of the reasons you don't have that is because the current American administration is dead set against you. Do you think if there were a new administration after Joe Biden that you would be able to reestablish communication with the US government, or does it not matter who the president is?
Speaker 1: I will tell you, but let me finish the previous thought. We, together with my colleague and friend, President Xi Jinping, set a goal to reach $200,000,000,000 of mutual trade with China this year. We have exceeded this level. According to our figures, our bilateral trade with China totals already 230,000,000,000, and the Chinese statistics says it is $240,000,000,000. One more important thing, our trade is well balanced, mutually complementary in high-tech, energy, scientific research and development.
It is very balanced. For BRICS, where Russia took over the presidency this year, the BRICS countries are, by and large, developing very rapidly. Look, if memory serves me right, back in 1992, the share of the g seven countries in the world economy amounted to 47%, whereas in 2022 it was down to, I think, a little over 30%. The BRICS countries accounted for only 16% in 1992, but now their share is greater than that of the G7. It has nothing to do with the events in Ukraine.
This is due to the trends of global development and world economy, as I mentioned just now, And this is inevitable. This will keep happening, it is like the rise of the sun. You cannot prevent the sun from rising, you have to adapt to it. How do The United States adapt? With the help of force, sanctions, pressure, bombings, and use of armed forces.
This is about self conceit. Your political establishment does not understand that the world is changing under objective circumstances. And in order to preserve your level, even if someone aspires, pardon me, to the level of dominance, you have to make the right decisions in a competent and timely manner. Such brutal actions, including with regard to Russia and, say, other countries, are counterproductive. This is an obvious fact.
It has already become evident. You just asked me if another leader comes and changes something. It is not about the leader, it is not about the personality of a particular person. I had a very good relationship with, say, Bush. I know that in The United States, he was portrayed as some kind of a country boy who does not understand much.
I assure you that this is not the case. I think he made a lot of mistakes with regard to Russia too. I told you about 2008 and the decision in Bucharest to open the NATO's doors to for Ukraine and so on. That happened during his presidency. He actually exercised pressure on the Europeans.
But in general, on a personal human level, I had a very good relationship with him. He was no worse than any other American or Russian or European politician. I assure you, he understood what he was doing as well as others. I had such personal relationship with Trump as well. It is not about the personality of the leader, it is about the elite's mindset.
If the idea of domination at any cost, based also on forceful actions, dominates the American society, nothing will change, it will only get worse. But if, in the end, one comes to the awareness that the world has been changing due to the objective circumstances, and that one should be able to adapt to them in time using the advantages that The US still has today, then perhaps something may change. Look, China's economy has become the first economy in the world in purchasing power parity. In terms of volume, it overtook The US a long time ago. The USA comes second, then India, 1,500,000,000 people, and then Japan, with Russia in the fifth place.
Russia was the first economy in Europe last year, despite all the sanctions and restrictions. Is it normal from your point of view, Sanctions, restrictions, impossibility of payments in dollars, being cut off from swift services, sanctions against our ships carrying oil, sanctions against airplanes, sanctions in everything, everywhere. The largest number of sanctions in the world which are applied are applied against Russia, and we have become Europe's first economy during this time. The tools that US uses don't work. Well, one has to think about what to do.
If this realization comes to the ruling elites, then yes, then the first person of the state will act in anticipation of what the voters and the people who make decisions at various levels expect from this person. Then maybe something will change.
Speaker 0: But you're describing two different systems. You say that the leader acts in the interest of the voters, but you also say these decisions are not made by the leader, they're made by the ruling classes. You've run this country for so long, you've known all these American presidents. What are those power centers in The United States, do you think? Like, who actually makes the decisions?
Speaker 1: I don't know. America is a complex country, conservative on one hand, rapidly changing on the other. It's not easy for us to sort it all out. Who makes decisions in the elections? Is it possible to understand this when each state has its own legislation, each state regulates itself?
Someone can be excluded from elections at the state level. It is a two stage electoral system, it is very difficult for us to understand it. Certainly, are two parties that are dominant, the Republicans and the Democrats, and within this party system, the centers that make decisions, that prepare decisions. Then, look, why, in my opinion, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, such an erroneous, crude, completely unjustified policy of pressure was pursued against Russia? After all, this is a policy of pressure.
NATO expansion, support for the separatists and caucuses, creation of a missile defense system. These are all elements of pressure. Pressure, pressure, pressure. Then dragging Ukraine into NATO is all about pressure, pressure, pressure. Why?
I think, among other things, because excessive production capacities were created. During the confrontation with the Soviet Union, there were many centers created and specialists on the Soviet Union, who could not do anything else. They convinced the political leadership that it is necessary to continue chiseling Russia, to try to break it out, to create on this territory several quasi state entities, and to subdue them in a divided form, to use their combined potential for the future struggle with China. This is a mistake, including the excessive potential of those who worked for the confrontation with the Soviet Union. It is necessary to get rid of this, there should be new, fresh forces, people who look into the future and understand what is happening in the world.
Look at how Indonesia is developing. 600,000,000 people. Where can we get away from that? Nowhere. We just have to assume that Indonesia will enter, it is already in, the club of the world's leading economies, no matter who likes it or dislikes it.
Yes, we understand and are aware that in The United States, despite all the economic problems, the situation is still normal, with the economy growing decently. The GDP is growing by 2.5%, if I'm not mistaken. But if we want to ensure the future, then we need to change our approach to what is changing. As I already said, the world would nevertheless change, regardless of how the developments in Ukraine end. The world is changing.
In The United States themselves, experts are writing that The United States are nonetheless gradually changing their position in the world. It is your experts who write that. I just read them. The only question is how this would happen. Painfully and quickly, or gently and gradually.
And this is written by people who are not anti American. They simply follow global development trends, that's it. And in order to assess them and change policies, we need people who think, look forward, can analyze and recommend certain decisions at the level of political leaders.
Speaker 0: I just have to ask, you've said clearly that NATO expansion eastward is a violation of the promise you all were made in 1990. It's a threat to your country. Right before you send troops into Ukraine, the Vice President of The United States went to the Munich Security Conference and encouraged the President of Ukraine to join NATO. Do you think that was an effort to provoke you into military action?
Speaker 1: I repeat once again, we have repeatedly, repeatedly proposed to seek a solution to the problems that arose in Ukraine after 2014, coup d'etat, through peaceful means. But no one listened to us. And moreover, the Ukrainian leaders who were under the complete US control suddenly declared that they would not comply with the Minsk agreements. They disliked everything there and continued military activity in that territory. And in peril, that territory was being exploited by NATO military structures under the guise of various personnel training and retraining centers.
They essentially began to create bases there, that's all. Ukraine announced that the Russians were a non titular nationality, while passing the laws that limit the rights of non titular nationalities in Ukraine. Ukraine, having received all these southeastern territories as a gift from the Russian people, suddenly announced that the Russians were a non titular nationality in that territory. Is that normal? All this put together led to the decision to end the war that neo Nazis started in Ukraine in 2014.
Speaker 0: Do you you think Zelenskyy has the freedom to negotiate a settlement to this conflict?
Speaker 1: I don't know the details. Of course, it's difficult for me to judge. But I believe he has, in any case, he used to have. His father fought against the fascists, Nazis during World War II. I once talked to him about this, I said, Bolodye, what are you doing?
Why are you supporting neo Nazis in Ukraine today, while your father fought against fascism? He was a front line soldier. I will not tell you what he answered, this is a separate topic and I think it's incorrect for me to do so. But as to the freedom of choice, why not? He came to power on the expectations of Ukrainian people that he would lead Ukraine to peace.
He talked about this. It was thanks to this that he won the elections overwhelmingly. But then, when he came to power, in my opinion, he realized two things. Firstly, it is better not to clash with neo Nazis and nationalists, because they are aggressive and very active, you can expect anything from them, and secondly, The US led West supports them and will always support those who antagonize with Russia, it is beneficial and safe. So he took the relevant position despite promising his people to end the war in Ukraine.
He deceived his voters.
Speaker 0: But do you think at this point, as of February 2024, he has the latitude, the freedom to speak with you or your government directly about putting an
Speaker 1: end to this,
Speaker 0: which clearly isn't helping his country or the world. Can he do that, do you think?
Speaker 1: Why not? He considers himself head of state, he won the elections. Although, we believe in Russia that the coup d'etat is the primary source of power for everything that happened after 2014, and in this sense, even today government is flawed. But he considers himself a president and he is recognized by The United States, all of Europe, and practically the rest of the world in such a capacity. Why not?
We can. We negotiated with Ukraine and Istanbul, we agreed, he was aware of this. Moreover, the negotiation group leader, Mr. Arahamiya is his last name, I believe still heads the faction of the ruling party, the party of the president in the Rada. He still heads the presidential faction in the Rada, the country's parliament, he still sits there.
He even put his preliminary signature on the document I am telling you about. But then he publicly stated to the whole world, we were ready to sign this document, but Mr. Johnson, then the Prime Minister of Great Britain, came and dissuaded us from doing this, saying it was better to fight Russia. They would give everything needed for us to return what was lost during the clashes with Russia. And we agreed with this proposal.
Look, his statement has been published. He said it publicly. Can they return to this or not? The question is, do they want it or not? Further on, President Ukraine issued a decree prohibiting negotiations with us.
Let him cancel that decree, and that's it. We have never refused negotiations indeed. We hear all the time, Is Russia ready? Yes, we have not refused. It was them who publicly refused.
Well, let him cancel his decree and enter into negotiations, we have never refused. And the fact that they obeyed the demand or persuasion of Mr. Johnson, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, seems ridiculous and very sad to me, because as Mr. Arakamiya put it, we could have stopped those hostilities with war a year and a half ago already. But the British persuaded us and we refused this.
Where is mister Johnson now? And the war continues.
Speaker 0: That's a good question. Where do you think he is and why did he do that?
Speaker 1: Hell knows. I don't understand it myself. There was a general starting point. For some reason, everyone had the illusion that Russia could be defeated on the battlefield. Because of arrogance, because of a pure heart, but not because of a great mind.
Speaker 0: You've described the connection between Russia and Ukraine. You've described Russia itself a couple of times as orthodox. That's central to your understanding of Russia. You've said you're orthodox. What does that mean in for you?
You're a Christian leader by your own description. So what effect does that have on you?
Speaker 1: Know, as I already mentioned in 09/1988, Prince Vladimir himself was baptized following the example of his grandmother, Princess Olga, and then he baptized his squad, and then gradually, over the course of several years, he baptized all the Rus'. It was a lengthy process, from pagans to Christians. It took many years. But in the end, this Orthodoxy, Eastern Christianity, deeply rooted itself in the consciousness of the Russian people. When Russia expanded and absorbed other nations who profess Islam, Buddhism and Judaism, Russia has always been very loyal to those people who profess other religions.
This is her strength. This is absolutely clear. And the fact is, that the main postulates, main values are very similar, not to say the same in all world religions I've just and which are the traditional religions of the Russian Federation, Russia. By the way, Russian authorities were always very careful about the culture and religion of those people who came into the Russian empire. This, in my opinion, forms the basis of both security and stability of the Russian statehood.
All the peoples inhabiting Russia basically consider it their motherhood. If, say, people move over to you or to Europe from Latin America, an even clearer and more understandable example, people come but yet they have come to you or to European countries from their historical homeland. And people who profess different religions in Russia, consider Russia their motherland, they have no other motherland. We are together, this is one big family, and our traditional values are very similar. I've just mentioned one big family, but everyone has hisher own family.
And this is the basis of our society. And if we say that the motherland and the family are specifically connected with each other. It is indeed the case, since it is impossible to ensure a normal future for our children and our families unless we ensure a normal, sustainable future for the entire country, for the motherland. That is why patriotic sentiment is so strong in Russia.
Speaker 0: But can I I say that the one way in which the religions are different is that Christianity is specifically a nonviolent religion? Jesus says, turn the other cheek. Don't kill. How can a leader who has to kill of any country, how can a leader be a Christian? How do you reconcile that to yourself?
Speaker 1: It is very easy when it comes to protecting oneself and one's family, one's homeland. We won't attack anyone. When did the developments in Ukraine start? Since the coup d'etat and the hostilities in Donbas began, that's when they started. And we're protecting our people, ourselves, our homeland and our future.
As for religion in general, you know, it's not about external manifestations. It's not about going to church every day or banging your head on the floor. It is in the heart. And our culture is so human oriented. Dostoevsky, who was very well known in the West and the genius of Russian culture, Russian literature, spoke a lot about this, about the Russian soul.
After all, Western society is more pragmatic, Russian people think more about the eternal, about moral values. I don't know, maybe you won't agree with me, but Western culture is more pragmatic after all. I'm not saying this is bad, it makes it possible for today's golden billion to achieve good success in production, even in science and so on. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that we kind of look the same with our minds.
Speaker 0: So do you see the supernatural at work as you look out across what's happening in the world now? Do you see God at work? Do you ever think to yourself, these are forces that are not human?
Speaker 1: No. To be honest, I don't think so. My opinion is that the development of the world community is in accordance with the inherent laws, and those laws are what they are. It's always been this way in the history of mankind. Some nations and countries rose, became stronger and more numerous, and then left the international stage, losing the status they had accustomed to.
There is probably no need for me to give examples, but we could start with the King Ghis Khan and horde conquerors, the Golden Horde, and then end with the Roman Empire. It seems that there has never been anything like the Roman Empire in the history of mankind. Nevertheless, the potential of the barbarians gradually grew as did their population. In general, the barbarians were getting stronger and begun to develop economically, as we would say today. Eventually led to the collapse of the Roman Empire and the regime imposed by the Romans.
However, it took five centuries for the Roman Empire to fall apart. The difference with what is happening now is that all the processes of change are happening at a much faster pace than in Roman times.
Speaker 0: So when does the AI empire start, do you think?
Speaker 1: You're asking increasingly more complicated questions. To answer them, you need to be an expert in big numbers, big data and AI. Mankind is currently facing many threats. Due to the genetic researches, it is now possible to create a superhuman, a specialized human being, a genetically engineered athlete, scientist, military There are reports that Elon Musk had already had a chip implanted in the human brain in The USA.
Speaker 0: What do you think of that?
Speaker 1: Well, I think there's no stopping Elon Musk. He will do as he sees fit. Nevertheless, you need to find some common ground with him, search for ways to persuade him. I think he's a smart person, I truly believe he is. So you need to reach an agreement with him, because this process needs to be formalized and subjected to certain rules.
Humanity has to consider what is going to happen due to the newest development in genetics or in AI. One can make an approximate prediction of what will happen. Once mankind felt an existential threat coming from nuclear weapons, all nuclear nations began to come to terms with one another since they realized the negligent use of nuclear weaponry could drive humanity to extinction. It is impossible to stop research in genetics or AI today, just as it was impossible to stop the use of gunpowder back in the day. But as soon as we realize that the threat comes from unbridled and uncontrolled development of AI, or genetics, or any other field, the time will come to reach an international agreement on how to regulate these things.
Speaker 0: I I appreciate all the time, you've given us. I just gotta ask you one last question, and that's about someone who's very famous in The United States, probably not here. Evan Gershkovitz, who's The Wall Street Journal reporter. He's 32, and he's been imprisoned for almost a year. This is a huge story in The United States.
And I just wanna ask you directly without getting into the details of it or your version of what happened, if as a sign of your decency, you would be willing to release him to us and we'll bring him back to The United States?
Speaker 1: We have done so many gestures of goodwill out of decency that I think we have run out of them. We have never seen anyone reciprocate to us in a similar manner. However, in theory, we can say that we do not rule out that we can do that if our partners take reciprocal steps. When I talk about the partners, I, first of all, refer to special services. Special services are in contact with one another, they are talking There about the matter in is no taboo to settle this issue, we are willing to solve it.
But there are certain terms being discussed via special services channels. I believe an agreement can be reached.
Speaker 0: So, typical I mean, this stuff has happened for, obviously, centuries. One country catches another spy within its borders. It trades it for one of its own intel guys in another country. I think what makes this and it's not my business. But what makes this difference is the guy's obviously not a spy.
He's a kid. And maybe he was breaking your law in some way, but he's not a super spy, and everybody knows that. And he's being held hostage in exchange, which is true. With respect, it's true, and everyone knows it's true. So maybe he's in a different category.
Maybe it's not fair to ask for, you know, somebody else in exchange for letting him out. Maybe it degrades Russia to do that.
Speaker 1: You know, you can give different interpretations to what constitutes a spy, but there are certain things provided by law. If person gets secret information and does that in conspiratorial manner, then this is qualified as espionage. And that is exactly what he was doing. He was receiving classified, confidential information, and he did it covertly. Maybe he did that out of carelessness, or his own initiative.
Considering the sheer fact, this is qualified as espionage. The fact has been proven, as he was caught red handed when he was receiving this information. If it had been some far fetched excuse, some fabrication, something not proven, it would have been different story then. But he was caught red handed when he was secretly getting confidential information. What is it then?
Speaker 0: But are you suggesting that he was working for the US government or NATO, or he was just a reporter who was given material he wasn't supposed to have? Those seem like very different very different things.
Speaker 1: I don't know who he was working for, but I would like to reiterate that getting classified information in secret is called espionage, and he was working for the US special services, some other agencies. I don't think he was working for Monaco, as Monaco is hardly interested in getting that information. It is up to special services to come to an agreement. Some groundwork has been laid, there are people who, in our view, are not connected with special services. Let me tell you a story about a person serving a sentence in an allied country of The US.
That person, due to patriotic sentiments, eliminated a bandit in one of the European capitals. During the events in the Caucasus. Do you know what he was doing? I don't want to say that, but I will do it anyway. He was laying our soldiers taken prisoner on the road and then drove his car over their heads.
What kind of person is that? Can he even be called human? But there was a patriot who eliminated him in one of the European capitals. Whether he did it of his own volition or not, that is a different question.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Evan, first, we'll just what don't That I mean, that's a completely different I mean, I mean, it's a 32
Speaker 1: year old,
Speaker 0: like most people.
Speaker 1: He committed something different. He's not just a journalist. I reiterate, he's a journalist who was secretly giving confidential information. Yes, it is different, but still, I'm talking about other people who are essentially controlled by The US authorities, wherever they are serving a sentence. There is an ongoing dialogue between the special services.
This has to be resolved in a calm, responsible and professional manner. They are keeping in touch, so let them do their work. I do not rule out that the person you refer to, Mr. Gershkovits, may return to his motherland. By the end of the day, it does not make any sense to keep him in prison in Russia.
We want the US special services to think about how they can contribute to achieving the goals our special services are pursuing. We are ready to talk. Moreover, the talks are underway. And there have been many successful examples of these talks crowned with success. Probably, this is going to be crowned with success as well.
But we have to come to an agreement.
Speaker 0: I hope you let him out. Mister president, thank you.
Speaker 1: I also want him to return to his homeland at last. I'm absolutely sincere. But let me say once again, the dialogue The more public we render things of this nature, the more difficult it becomes to resolve them. Everything has to be done in calm manner.
Speaker 0: I wonder if that's true with the war though also. I mean, I guess I wanna ask one more question, which is and maybe you don't wanna say so for strategic reasons, but are you worried that what's happening in Ukraine could lead to something much larger and much more horrible? And how motivated are you just to call the US government and say, let's come to terms?
Speaker 1: I already said that we did not refuse to talk. We are willing to negotiate. It is the Western side, and Ukraine is obviously a satellite state of The US. It is evident. I do not want you to take it as if I am looking for a strong word or an insult, but we both understand what is happening.
The financial support, 72,000,000,000 US dollars, was provided. Germany ranks second, then other European countries come. Dozens of billions of US dollars are going There's to a huge influx of weapons. In this case, you should tell the current Ukrainian leadership to stop and come to negotiating table, rescind this absurd decree. We did not refuse.
Speaker 0: Sure. But you already said it. I didn't think you meant it as an insult because you already said correctly. It's been reported that Ukraine was prevented from negotiating a peace settlement by the former British prime minister acting on behalf of the Biden administration. So, of course, there's satellite.
Big countries control small countries. That's not new. And that's why I asked about dealing directly with the Biden administration, which is making these decisions, not president Zelenskyy of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Well, if the Zelensky administration in Ukraine refused to negotiate, I assume they did it under the instruction from Washington. If Washington believes it to be the wrong decision, let it abandon it, let it find a delicate excuse so that no one is insulted, let it come up with It a way was not us who made this decision, it was them. So, let them go back on it, that is it. However, they made the wrong decision, and now we have to look for a way out of the situation to correct their mistakes. They did it, so let them correct it themselves.
We support this.
Speaker 0: So I just wanna make sure I'm not misunderstanding what you're saying. I don't think that I am. I think you're saying you want a negotiated settlement to what's happening in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Right. And we made it. We prepared the huge document in Istanbul that was initialed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation. He affixed his signature to some of the provisions, not to all of it. He put his signature and then he himself said: We were ready to sign it and the war would have been over long ago, eighteen months ago.
However, Prime Minister Johnson came, talked us out of it, and we missed that Well, you missed it, you made a mistake, let them get back to that, that is all. Why do we have to bother ourselves and correct somebody else's mistakes? I know one can say it is our mistake, it was us who intensified the situation and decided to put an end to the war that started in 2014 in Donbas. As I have already said, by means of weapons. Let me get back to further in history.
I already told you this, we were just discussing it. Let us go back to 1991, when we were promised that NATO would not expand, to 02/2008, when the doors to NATO opened to the declaration of state sovereignty of Ukraine, declaring Ukraine a neutral state. Let us go back to the fact that NATO and US military bases started to appear on the territory of Ukraine, creating threats to us. Let us go back to coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2014. It is pointless, though, isn't it?
We may go back and forth endlessly, but they stop negotiations. Is it a mistake? Yes. Correct it. We are ready.
What else is needed?
Speaker 0: Do you think it's too humiliating at this point for NATO to accept Russian control of what was two years ago Ukrainian territory?
Speaker 1: I said, let them think how to do it with dignity. There are options if there is a will. Up until now, there has been the uproar and screaming about inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. Now, they are apparently coming to realize that it is difficult to achieve, if possible at all. In my opinion, it is impossible by definition, it is never going to happen.
It seems to me that now, those who are in power in the West have come to realize this as well. If so, if the realization has set in, they have to think what to do next. We are ready for this dialogue.
Speaker 0: Would you be willing to say congratulations, NATO, you won, and just keep the situation where it is now?
Speaker 1: You know, it is a subject matter for the negotiations. No one is willing to conduct or to put it more accurately. They are willing, but do not know how to do it. I know they want to. It is not just I see it, but I know they do want it, but they are struggling to understand how to do it.
They have driven the situation to the point where we are at. It is not us who have done that, it is our partners, opponents who have Well, done now let them think how to reverse the situation. We're not against it. It would be funny if it were not so sad. This endless mobilization in Ukraine, the hysteria, the domestic problems, sooner or later, it will result in agreement.
You know, this probably sounds strange given the current situation. But the relations between the two peoples will be rebuilt It will take a lot of time, but they will heal. I'll give you very unusual examples. There is a combat encounter on the battlefield. Here's specific example.
Ukrainian soldiers got encircled, this is an example from real life. Our soldiers were shouting to them, There is no chance, surrender yourselves, come out and you will be alive. Suddenly, the Ukrainian soldiers were screaming from there in Russian, perfect Russian, saying: Russians do not surrender. And all of them perished. They still identify themselves as Russian.
What is happening is, to a certain extent, an element of a civil war. Everyone in the West thinks that the Russian people have been split by hostilities forever. Now they will be reunited. Yeah. The unity is still there.
Why are the Ukrainian authorities dismantling the Ukrainian Orthodox Church? Because it brings together not only the territory, it brings together our souls. No one will be able to separate the soul. Shall we end here, or is there anything else?
Speaker 0: No. I think that's great.
Speaker 1: I assume.
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister president.
@_pblanknews - Point Blank News
Tucker Carlson Takes On Critics of His Interview with Putin | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 210 https://t.co/WfYY3tbIXq
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation explores the complexities of U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Russia and Ukraine. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of transparency and accountability in government actions, emphasizing that decisions often benefit a select few rather than the American public. They argue that the U.S. should prioritize its own citizens and interests over foreign conflicts, criticizing NATO's ineffectiveness and the manipulation of public sentiment around race and foreign policy. The speaker also reflects on their experiences interviewing Putin, questioning the motivations behind U.S. involvement in Ukraine and the broader implications for American sovereignty and democracy. They call for a return to a more principled and transparent governance that focuses on the well-being of American citizens.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Welcome. How are you?
Speaker 1: Hey, Len. I'm great. I get in late last night. I haven't had a haircut as you can see. Yeah.
So pardon my appearance, but I'm I'm, grateful that you asked me. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Well, I I first of all, I just I I just wanna know, I mean, is this going to be a talk show or are we gonna have a serious conversation? Because I'd like to start with the the history of the Beck family starting at 800 BCE. So what did you make of what did you make of that?
Speaker 1: Well, I was enraged because I thought, you know, I didn't go into the interview feeling like I had to, you know, posture morally. You know? I took a look at the last interview I did with a Western journalist, and the entire interview was the reporter from some dumb news outlet being like, I'm a good person. You're a bad person. You know?
And that I I'm not interested in proving I'm a good person. People can assess. God can assess. You know? I I I just wanted information.
But I was infuriated because they thought he was filibustering. I asked him a really pretty straightforward the obvious question, which is why did you do this? Why'd you send troops into Eastern Ukraine? And he goes on this long answer, and so I interrupted him a couple of times. I tried to.
It got very snippy. And then I realized, no. This is the answer. And, you know, he just thinks differently. I've never met him before.
Speaker 0: So wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.
Speaker 1: On what?
Speaker 0: So I don't understand I don't understand the story because I had the same question you did at the very end. So are you saying ancestral homelands should be given back to right? Because that where does that end?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't believe in that anywhere. Yeah. Okay?
Speaker 0: Right. Neither do I.
Speaker 1: Not giving my house back to the Passamaquoddy. Okay? I'm sorry. I feel sorry for people who are displaced, but I, you know, I there has to be a statute of limitations. So I thought it was a silly argument to make.
I'm not sure he was making an argument, and moreover, I'm not sure I understand exactly what he was doing, so I shouldn't pretend that I do. There's a lot about that interview that I don't really understand. I don't think he was very effective if his goal was to win a effective if his goal was to win a western audience to his perspective. It didn't make me pro more pro Putin. No.
Not that I was. And by the way, I should just say at the outset, I've been accused of being pro Putin, and I'm not. But if I was, that's okay too.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: I'm an adult man, an American citizen. I can like or dislike anyone I want. I can have any opinion I want. I'm not ashamed of it. And the idea that, like, a small number of people in DC get to decide what I believe
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: Is not something I accept. So You know? So I reserve I to like anybody.
Speaker 0: Right. And I and I want I mean, you like me. It can't go downhill more than that. The, I wanna get to that here in a second. But first, you had a, a tough time the first time you tried to interview interview Putin.
Okay? How do you know?
Speaker 1: Well, it could be because someone who worked there warned me through a very close very close friend of mine. And I won't bore you with the whole details, but I flipped to Washington to meet the person at his request. I couldn't believe this. It scared me. I immediately called the US senator.
I don't know very many US senators well, but there's one I thought seemed kinda trustworthy. So I said, I just wanna get this on the record this has happened. And then members of congress went to NSA, and they admitted that they had read my email. And so it's I wasn't and I went on TV and described the whole thing, and I thought there would be widespread out of it. I am.
I thought people would be like, outraged. You can't No. You can't use a spy agency that we pay for whose job is to monitor our enemies, our rivals. In other countries, you can't use that against the American population. And no one seemed to care, but I cared
Speaker 0: I did.
Speaker 1: Because I grew up on the US government. My dad ran a federal agency in Washington. So I sort of knew what the rules were, and I had a really strong sense of how much this had changed. Like, this was not allowed 30 years ago. It was an outrage.
It's a crime, but no one seems to be bothered by it. But I am bothered by it.
Speaker 0: So I am too. And I think every citizen should be, especially journalists. You know, when you have freedom of speech, freedom of press, there's two rights that are going away here, and, and nobody seemed to care. But how so then what happened the second time? How did you arrange this?
Speaker 1: Well, I, I just kept trying. You know, I kept actually, I did it myself, with, you know, texting, and I thought and I talked to a bunch of different people. After that happened to me, I I really tried to learn more about privacy and how can you communicate, outside the view of state actors' governments. Mhmm. And you can't if if you're doing electronically.
That is what I arrived at, and I think any knowledgeable person would admit that. There's no privacy, which itself is very distressing, but I just decided I would do it anyway. And I enlisted some non Russians I knew, who I thought might be able to vouch for me, etcetera. And it took a couple of years, and, ultimately, they said, yes. We will, do this.
But if if news of this interview gets out, we're canceling the interview.
Speaker 0: Wow.
Speaker 1: So I started to get so this is the best part. I got calls. I got a call from a New York Times reporter, and then a friend of mine got a call from another New York Times reporter asking when I was interviewing Putin. And there's no way they could have known that. I didn't tell anybody.
You know, my wife, my producers, not even my kids, I didn't tell anybody. One of my children was highly annoyed to to learn I was in Moscow. Why didn't you tell me? I said, because I didn't wanna text it. You know?
But, no, I they clearly did it again. They leaked it to the New York Times in an effort to scuttle the inter and I just again, I I hate to be, you know, mister stubborn principle guy, but that is a principle worth defending. I'm an American citizen. I have not committed a crime. I can speak to anyone I want.
I can have any opinion I want. And you're not allowed to use your creepy spy agencies against me because I'm your boss. This is a democracy. Aren't you always telling me that? But again, nobody cares, so I'm gonna stop the lecture on that.
But it it did motivate me to keep going. And but my real motivation was, like, I just wanna know what's happening there. We're in a war with Russia. We've never had a vote in congress on whether we should be in a war with Russia. No one's ever explained to me why we should be at war with Russia, why I'm supposed to hate Russians.
Why am I supposed to hate Russians? We've got an awful lot of things going on here. The country is in very tough shape, especially right now. It's completely out of money. We're bankrupt.
And so it does seem like we should have more information before we send another $60,000,000,000 that we don't keep track of to Ukraine. I mean, that just I have very straightforward motives, which I've explained many times, but nothing crazy or out of the ordinary, esoteric, or anything like that. Just like like, what is this? Let's find out more.
Speaker 0: Any feeling on why he chose you?
Speaker 1: Probably because I just kept trying. I mean, that was my sense. I just kept trying, and and I was one of the few and I should just say again, and I don't wanna be defensive because I'm I'm not defensive, but I'm I'm never been a I don't don't have anything to do with Russia. I don't I had never been there before. Russian, you know, it's so nuts.
But my first instinct when this happened was that the sanctions were gonna destroy the primacy of the US dollar around the world and stealing people's stuff, 1,000,000,000 of dollars of people's stuff because they were, quote, oligarchs.
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 1: Without any vote on it at all, law enforcement proceeding, much less adjudication, much less real evidence that they had anything to do with the invasion of Ukraine, which a lot of these people didn't. You're a Russian oligarch, said American oligarchs. We're taking your stuff. I was like, whatever happened to the rules based order? You know, that's crazy behavior, and it's immoral, obviously, no matter who you're doing it to.
You can't punish people without a finding of guilt, without proof. And moreover, it's gonna convince, in short order, the rest of the world that you can't trust the US dollar because it's gonna become a political instrument instrument that we use to punish people who deviate ideologically or don't do what we want. And the second, the rest of the world understands that they're gonna do everything they can to exit the US dollar to find another place to store their money. And the second they do that, the United States is going to collapse because this is a society, an economy based on debt. And if that ever comes due, we're done.
This is a poor country, and it's all super obvious. And I didn't know why no one was saying that. None of the geniuses in congress seemed to even think about this. They're like, no. We're gonna punish Putin because I don't know why white Christian country, we hate him.
I really don't know what what the motive is. It's bizarre.
Speaker 0: Well, he's okay. But
Speaker 1: the effect on us is scary.
Speaker 0: It's huge. Agree with that a 100%. Let me let me cast out where I stand on this issue, and then you tell me if it is close to your because I can't figure out where you are exactly. And I bet a lot of people feel the same way about me and others, because it's a complex issue. Putin is a bad guy.
Cold blooded killer throws people off of roofs. You know, he's he's a bad guy. K? Period. Dictator.
But I don't like the Russian leaders either. They are corrupt and dirty, and I don't think that or Ukrainian, and I don't think the Ukrainian leadership, is in it for really anything but money, power, and I'm not sure where all that money is going to. But when you're spending more than you did, for the Marshall Plan in inflation adjusted dollars, something isn't right. And why are we just pushing this through? So I don't wanna support Putin.
I don't wanna support the leadership of Ukraine, and I don't trust Biden and and the administration on what they're doing. They have been in meddling in Russia and Ukraine forever. So I can't say I have a horse with any I I don't wanna put my name behind any of the 3 because I don't trust any of the 3. But I'm still proudly American. I just don't want to be involved in this because some this is a game that's being played where we don't have the information and what the real game is.
How do you where do you fit in that?
Speaker 1: I think pretty close to to where you are. I'm a little more agnostic on global leaders just because maybe I care less. I I having, you know, spent a lot of time out of the country, interviewed a bunch of them, I sort of assume every world leader, all leaders by definition, are up to no good on some level.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The only thing I care about is the United States, and that's it. And I think the only thing the US government should care about by definition is the United States. So to the extent alliance is good for the United States and my children, then I'm in favor of it. And to the extent it's bad, then I'm opposed to it. I mean, that's I have a very clear lens there.
I have no emotional attachment to any other country. I just I frequently go to, say, Finland or Switzerland, England. I I have ancestors from all of those countries. I like those countries. I love them, actually, but I don't I don't have an emotional attachment.
I am American. That's it. And so the Russia, Ukraine, the domestic politics of either one of those countries, the
Speaker 0: I don't even know that.
Speaker 1: Long standing conflicts they've had exactly. It's of it's of less interest to me, almost very little interest to me, actually. What I care about is the United States. That's the first thing. Second thing is the people around our country are destroying it, and they're doing it on purpose.
And there's no doubt about that in my mind, and I've withheld judgment for a number of years now. But with Yeah. What they've done at the border, completely changing the population of the country, letting in millions and millions of people who have no connection to the United States, can't possibly help our economy, can't possibly unify our very fractured civic culture, and whose loyalty to and knowledge of the United States is completely in question. In fact, their identities are in question. We don't know who they are, and they're coming through a country in the middle of a drug war.
The whole thing is not by the way, bad management or they're not doing their job. No. They're destroying the United States on purpose. And so I'd begin with that. So the idea that those same people are going to somehow affect positive change in Eastern Europe, a region they know nothing about, and it's demonstrable.
They don't know anything at all, is, like, insane to me. And the fact that Republican leaders who really are either, in many cases, just they just don't know, or they're controlled, that is true, are on board with this is just infuriating. So but but I approach this in a very nonemotional way. I'm emotional about my country, and I think all Americans most Americans feel the same way I do. They care about what happens here because your kids live here.
Speaker 0: Right. And I feel the same way, but I look at what's happening around the world because at first, I just concentrated on us. And then after build back better became the slogan for every president and prime minister in the entire western world, I realized, wait a minute. This isn't a western world, I realized, wait a minute. This isn't about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump and this is we are being led in our own countries, each of us, that to believe that it's us versus the Nazis or us versus, you know, the Democrats.
It's not. It is the people in each free country in the west against I'm not sure yet what it is, but, a really nasty blob up at the top, that has their own designs on the world and their own plans on the world. And there it just seems to me that I I haven't found a Winston Churchill anywhere in the world. Name one that you you see, currently in office.
Speaker 1: Well, there's no difference between most leaders in the west because no western country, including ours, has sovereignty. And sovereignty means you get to act in your own interest. You're a distinct country with, you know, borders in a democratic system where your population decides how it will be governed, sovereignty. And we don't have that and no other country does. So they act as a group.
And I and I do think, you know, always pay attention to the things you're not allowed to think or say. And NATO is is a huge part of this. NATO is, in addition to everything else, totally incompetent totally incompetent. I mean, NATO is a defense alliance aimed at Russia. And it turns out that Russia has a 7 x military an artillery shell capacity, manufacturing capacity of all of NATO.
So all the NATO countries together produce 1 7th the number of artillery shells annually that Russia, this country we were told was a gas station with nuclear weapons, totally incompetent country produces. So NATO isn't even good at the military piece, but NATO is not a military alliance. Of course, it's a political and cultural alliance, and it's the tool with which, you know, whatever this multilateral alliance of unelected people uses to express its will, and it is an offense against our sovereignty. The US military when I set up for the US military, I should fight for the United States on behalf of its territorial integrity and its interests. I shouldn't be fighting for Lithuania.
Like, the whole thing is nuts. And in Washington, criticizing NATO is considered, like, sinful or something. It's a religion. But, of course, what it really is is a scam. It's a it's a money laundering operation, and it's an attack on American sovereignty.
And, like, nobody can say that. You won't find one member of congress who will say that NATO is terrible for the United States, but, of course, it is. It's obvious.
Speaker 0: So let me let me now go to some of the criticism of you that, you know, John Stewart just did a piece. I don't know if you've seen it on you. But yeah. I never watched the movie.
Speaker 1: A lot of stuff.
Speaker 0: I know. So, you know, you went in, you said Moscow is clean. The the subways are wonderful. Look at the chandeliers. Well, you I know you, Tucker.
You're smart enough to know who built those to look like that and why. And Duranty went over
Speaker 1: I said I said it in the piece. So Walter Duranty denied the existence. He was a New York Times correspondent in Russia in the thirties. He denied, of course, the the Ukrainian Yep. Famine war.
Which was Stalin. That's exactly right. And he denied the the show trials of 1937, 38, the the the terror Right. Was was happening. So, those were lies.
Okay? He told lies, and that's why his Pulitzer Prize was pulled from him posthumously. I told the truth in order to shame our leaders. That subway station I showed was built by Stalin in 1939. Joseph Stalin, probably the worst person in human history.
That was over 80 years ago, and it's still in perfect shape. Okay. That's the point. Look at what Moscow has and compare it to what we have.
Speaker 0: So but and
Speaker 1: you have to ask yourself, like, no. This is this is an indictment of our leaders, and I would recommend to every single one of your viewers and listeners, if you can, go spend a week in Moscow. Not not because you love Russia, but because you love your own country and compare that city to the largest city in Europe, 13,000,000 people, compare it to the city that you live in or the city near you, which is in better shape? So so, actually, it's an indictment. It's a radicalizing indictment of our rapidly declining standard of living and the horrible mismanagement of our leaders.
Why don't we have a subway like that in any American city?
Speaker 0: Why give a
Speaker 1: single American city with no crime? Like, what is this?
Speaker 0: Right. Well, I mean, there's not a lot of crime in North Korea either. There's no there's no drug problem really in China because you could just take them off the street and kill them.
Speaker 1: But but but but we didn't but we didn't have that here. And I'm only 54, and I remember it.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: It's not like you have a fascist of an orderly society. We had one.
Speaker 0: So
Speaker 1: And on Memorial Day 2020 with the drug OD of George Floyd, everything changed. And what we got was the intentional destruction of American cities. Now I don't live in a city because I don't like them. But what I missed because I don't live in one is that you can't have a great country unless you have a great city, period, or a number of great cities. Cities define your country.
That's not my choice. It's just a fact. It's always been true. And so if every one of your cities is a cesspool, then your country is collapsing. But they don't need to be that way.
Crime is the easiest thing to fix. You say, we're not we're just not putting up with this. We've done it before. I covered it. I wrote a book on it in 1994.
I watched New York City go from a very dangerous place to one of the safest cities in the world, and it didn't take mass executions. It didn't even take mass incarceration. It just took paying attention to the details. If there's graffiti, wipe it off. If people are jumping over the turnstiles, arrest them.
Speaker 0: People call
Speaker 1: them broken.
Speaker 0: It's called the Windows
Speaker 1: Theory Yes. By James q Wilson and George Kelling, one of the most famous pieces on criminology and really on social science ever written and true to the state. But, anyway, the point is we have a drug crisis, a fentanyl crisis, a homeless crisis, a crisis of mental illness, and a crime crisis, and a filth crisis, just the dirtiness of it. That's all on purpose. That's what I realized when I went to Moscow, and not just Moscow.
Abu Dhabi, which is not a fascist city at all. It's much more a more tolerant place than any place in the west, actually. If you want your mind blown, spend a week in Abu Dhabi. It's true in Singapore, which is pretty authoritarian. It's true in Tokyo, which is kind of authoritarian.
I'm I'm wait.
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait. Wait. I've been to I've been to Abu Dhabi. They'll cut your hands off for, you know, for theft.
I can't talk about
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Christ in Abu Dhabi. So it does have some
Speaker 1: Oh, not true. Oh, not true. Abu Dhabi is a bigger Christmas celebration than almost any American city. Oh, no. Abu Dhabi I mean, I don't know when the last time you were there.
I was just there last week, and I've spent and look. I'm not flacking for Abu Dhabi. Okay? I'm not about Gaza. But the point is that this is the lie that they tell, and this is what I've realized after just spending a lot of time going to different places with an open mind, thinking about how the lessons of these cities might apply to the cities that I care about.
Like, the city I was born in, San Francisco, the prettiest city in North America by far by big town.
Speaker 0: By far.
Speaker 1: Totally uninhabitable. My family's been there since 1850. Wow. So I do feel like some kind of ownership. I I don't have ownership, but I feel a connection to the city.
And it has declined to a place that is 3rd world or worse than 3rd world, actually, because the people running it wanted that. It wasn't an accident. It's not a choice, but liberalism and Nazism. And if you choose liberalism, then you're gonna have 50,000 people shooting drugs on your sidewalks or crapping in your doorway. That's not the choice.
You can have a free society. We had one for 100 of years Yes. Where there's order and politeness and decency and self respect and concern for the individual. If you allow people to OD on drugs in your park, what are you saying? I don't care about their lives.
You are a cruel and vicious person if you allow that, and we are allowing. Our leaders are. And going to Moscow, I'm like, how the hell do they get this? I mean, how did how did this is Russia. This is the country.
And, again, I don't wanna live in Russia, and I'm not going to. But I should be able to live in a city like that, and I can't because our leaders, every big city mayor, most governors, the entire congress of the United States, the White House, they step over the bodies of drug addicts, of fentanyl addicts, maybe the dead bodies every day on their way to work, and they don't notice to go appropriate more money for a country they know nothing about and whose language they don't speak. Like, this is peak insanity. And so, yes, of course, I knew I was gonna be compared to Walter Duranty. And by the way, if Bill Crystal accuses you of not loving America or not, Bill Crystal, no no concern for America whatsoever.
Like, you just laugh it off. You're telling look. I have a lot of faults. I eat too much. I'm kind of a jerk.
I get all that, but I don't I don't think it's a really serious critique to say I don't love America enough. Really? Who are the people saying that? They're the ones who've opened our borders, let fentanyl flow in here, kill over a 100000 Americans every year, and it doesn't bother them at all. And they're telling me, I don't love America.
I'm trying not to use the f word on your show, but that's how I feel because it's just so insane.
Speaker 0: So, Tucker You
Speaker 1: should go to Moscow. You should go next week. It will radicalize you. You will not give up American citizenship. You'll come back to this country and say, we had cities like this.
And if even Moscow can do it, we should do it.
Speaker 0: So I I I think I agree with you a 100%. Where the sticking point is in America right now is there's a lot of people on the right and the left that are both saying screw the constitution. We need a radicalized leader. When, you know, when you look at Orban, I think Orban is great for his country. That's not our system.
I think, you know, the Moscow might be great, love to visit. That's not our system. So I think and I I believe you are you're you've already said this, but I wanna make sure it's very clear on the record. The only path forward for America is through the declaration of independence, the bill of rights, and the constitution. Correct?
Of course. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I I should just be very, very clear. If I was I'm like the one person on the planet. You don't need to guess about my motives. I'll just say them. And if I was advocating for a different form of government or for for authoritarianism, for strong man, I would just say so.
I I would have no shame in saying that because I really believe that it's within my rights to say what I think. If I I've I've been called a racist. If I was racist, I would just say it. I would just say it, but I'm not. And I'm not advocating for that.
I'm advocating to return to America of, say, 1993. How radical. Is that really radical? No. I don't think it's very radical.
In fact, I think we should be demanding it. And if there's one thing that I will fault Americans for, it's low expectations. You should not put up with this. You should not allow them. The governor of Texas should not allow millions of people to cross his border.
And I don't wanna hear, you know, the excuses. And I don't wanna hear the excuses for why it's okay to have tens of thousands of people dying on the street or sleeping on the sidewalk in tents handed to them by the Episcopal Church forever. Like, that's not acceptable. It's not okay for my kids to use drugs at the breakfast table. I'm not gonna have a debate about it.
No is the answer. I'm within my rights as a father to say that. The US government is within its statutory rights as a government to say that. We don't need more laws. We have the laws.
The they're not being enforced on purpose and and to your point, why? And, of course, the reason is because people will lose faith in liberal democracy.
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 1: And they will welcome a strong man. And that's exactly what this is about, is the left and not just the left. I would say that the quisling right, on Capitol Hill for whom I just have boundless contempt, they're in on this as well. Yes. People are just gonna give up.
They're not gonna vote that used to they're gonna steal the elections just as they stole the last one, which they did. Sorry. And they're gonna steal the next one. And people just be like, you know what? I don't even care.
I just totally give up. This is crazy. Just just get get the bums off my street. Some guy just exposed himself to my daughter. My nephew just died of a fentanyl OD.
Make it stop. Make it stop. You can have all the power you want. That is absolutely what they're going for, and I don't want that. I wanna live in the country we lived in in 1993 or 1985, not ancient history.
Post Civil Rights Act, we can do that. Let's do it right now. That's my point.
Speaker 0: You're right on that's what they're they're doing. It is it's amazing to watch. It's exactly the stuff that I talked about, back at Fox. It's deep down inside out to say the communist did it. It's the color revolution, and it's cloured and pivot.
It's it's all of it, and it's happening right in front of our eyes. It's crazy.
Speaker 1: People Americans need to know that because our sense of reality is shaped digitally, and Wikipedia is our history, and Instagram is our present, and Twitter is our future x. You know, people forget that we didn't have this just a few years ago, and that's why going to places that are different really reminds you, it triggers in you this this chain reaction of thoughts, and you realize I cannot believe I'm putting up with this. I can't believe there's a homeless encampment in front of Union Station in our nation's capital directly across from the Capitol building. That's so much more horrifying to me than anything that happened on January 6th. That's such an expression of contempt and loathing for the American people.
That's such an admission of defeat and lack of self respect. Like, no. You are not allowed to do drugs in front of Union Station. I don't wanna hear your excuse. I'm not responsible for housing you.
Get out of here. Like, it's just it's not hard. And that is kind of the society that they have in a lot of other countries.
Speaker 0: So let me let me go back to the interview. He the Putin was telling you weaving a story that our president isn't really in control. Wasn't he? And did you Of course. Have you done anything and reached out to try to verify any of this that it was true?
I mean, do you believe him?
Speaker 1: That the president's not really in control of him. Obviously, obviously Yeah. The policies don't change.
Speaker 0: Well, I will tell you. I will I when I heard him say that to you, I thought of something that George Bush told me in the Oval Office. I was asking about the policies and how they were gonna change, and he said, Glenn and then he tried to make me feel good by saying this. Glenn, don't worry. Whoever sits behind this desk in that chair is going to have the same advice given by the same advisers and they'll realize the president's hands are tied.
I walked out of that room horrified. Horrified.
Speaker 1: Uh-huh.
Speaker 0: Then why do we even have elections?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I I, of course, I I couldn't agree more. And, I mean, look, they haven't released the JFK files over 60 years late.
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: Okay? No president has just one we have over a 1000000000 classified documents. So it's not a it's not a democracy in the sense that they told us it was. And I think it can be fixed. I think the president's primary power is his communication with the public, and I continue to think that any president who decided to go right to social media, like, a direct feed.
Here's what I know. Here's what's going on. He could harness the power of the population, and he could make a change. I mean, the US the federal government's the largest organization in human history. You can't probably not gonna change it in 4 years, but you could make this country more democratic.
And you know what you could certainly do is change the conversation away from where they want it, which is getting black people and white people to hate each other. Okay? Race hate is a manufactured phenomenon in this country for the most part. Yeah. And it's actually provable.
It happened during occupy Wall Street in 2,012. The mentions of white supremacy and racism in the New York Times went up 100 of fold. So this is an intentional strategy to get people to hate each other on the basis of race. And as I walk around this country, I'm really surprised by how little race hatred there is. It actually No.
Yeah. Hasn't worked very well. Most Americans don't wanna do that, and they don't wanna talk about foreign policy and the economy, which are the core functions of state. And on those two topics, like, why do private equity people pay half the tax rate that you do? Like, that seems like a kind of an interesting conversation.
Shut up. And why are we sending all this money to Ukraine? I I wanna hear an amazing story that just tells you everything about this. So I'm over in Moscow. I'm waiting to do this interview.
It gets out that we're doing it, and I'm immediately denounced by this guy called Boris Johnson who was for a short time the prime minister of Great Britain. And Boris Johnson calls me a tool of the Kremlin or something. And I'm thinking, well, that's I mean, his name's not actually Boris as I'm sure you know. His name is Alex Johnson,
Speaker 0: and he
Speaker 1: called himself Boris in high school. So the guy who calls himself Boris is accusing me of that. I was like so I was annoyed. So I put in a a request for an interview with Boris Johnson as I have many times because he's constantly denouncing me as a tool of the Kremlin. He says no.
So I'm thinking about saying we're getting more annoyed. So I know a lot of people who know Boris Johnson. So I reach out to them. Finally, one of his advisors gets back to me and says, he will talk to you, but it's gonna cost you $1,000,000. He wants $1,000,000 What?
In US dollars, gold, or Bitcoin. No. And, this just happened yesterday or 2 days ago. And and I'm like, he wants $1,000,000. Yeah.
And then he will talk to you about Ukraine. He will explain his position on Ukraine and explain what so he attacks me without explaining how I'm wrong, of course, or how he's right. This is, by the way, the guy who single handedly, at the request of the US government, stopped the peace deal in Ukraine a year and a half ago and is, I think, for that reason, responsible for the deaths of 100 of thousands of people. He won't explain any of that to me in an interview until I pay him a $1,000,000. And I said to the guy, you know, I just interviewed Vladimir Putin.
I'm not defending Putin, but Putin didn't ask for a $1,000,000. So you're telling me that Boris Johnson is a lot sleazier, a lot lower than Vladimir Putin Okay. Which is true.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So this whole thing is a freaking shakedown. Why 60,000,000,000 I mean, I could get boring on this because I've learned a lot about it. But $60,000,000,000 is not gonna allow Ukraine to prevail over Russia. No honest person thinks that's gonna work. This is a money laundering operation.
A lot of the people involved in it making money from it. And if you're making money off a war, you know, you can deal with God on that because that's really immoral. Like, that's actually really, really wrong. And a lot of people are including Boris Johnson.
Speaker 0: So I pointed out that, the Ukrainians were funding, really through us, this Nazi, you know, group on the border of Russia. We had been funding them for quite a while because they were fighting against Russia. Okay. Now I guess it's okay for everybody to be, you know, in bed with the Nazis. When Putin said that, do you is he just evoking the Nazis because what it means to his people?
Is that really one of his goals? Is that really what's what's hap whatever what what did you finally get from him on what's happening on his side? Why is he doing this?
Speaker 1: I thought it was I thought it was stupid, the whole Nazi thing. I mean, there's no you know, the Nazi party was a German party, which obviously repugnant, party, but was responding to a specific historical set of circumstances growing out of the Treaty of Versailles. So Nazism, there's no there's no Das Kapital of Nazism. Right? And so it doesn't kind of transfer.
Like, Nazism died in April of 1945 when Hitler shot himself. So, you know, there are all kinds of ugly political movements in the world, but let's think of a new name for them. I I think it's like a weird
Speaker 0: National socialist.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Whatever. But, like, what ideology are you talking about? I just don't even under so, like, look. Russia moved into Eastern Ukraine because the Biden administration pushed them to.
There's a war in Ukraine because the Biden administration wanted a war in Ukraine. And that's very obvious, and it happened in public. Biden sent his vice president to the Munich Security Conference days before the invasion, 2 February's ago, to announce in public any press conference that we wanted Ukraine to join NATO. That would be nuclear weapons on Russia's border. Now this is not a new conversation.
This has been going on for 30 years.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Russia does not want nuclear weapons aimed at Moscow on its border and has said that's the red line as it would be with with for any country for if, you know, if the Chinese did that in Mexico, I hope we would say no. We're going to war before we allow that. And they knew that, and they pushed him to do this, of course. Now their motive, you know, I we can only guess at it, but that absolutely happened. And you're, like, not allowed to say that, but that's true.
Speaker 0: Yes. It is.
Speaker 1: It's not a defense of Putin. It's an attack on the craziness of our foreign policy, which is, like, purely destructive. Nothing is built, only destroyed. It's nuts.
Speaker 0: Let me, let me switch here for, for a second on some things that have happened, just recently while you were gone. Navalny, went for a walk in the Arctic Circle because he liked to walk outside, and then he came back. They say they tried everything they could to resuscitate. Was he assassinated or not?
Speaker 1: Are you asking me if I did it? Yeah. I did.
Speaker 0: No. And I can tell you.
Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. Sorry. I should never I never admit it. Oh. You know, was he assassinated?
I have no idea. No one in the United States has any idea. All these buffoons like Chuck Schumer, the c our senile president jumping up and down Russia to this. I mean, they don't know that. They don't know anything about it, actually.
I have no freaking idea. I can tell you it didn't help Russia to do it. They put him in prison. You can argue about whether they had justification for doing that. I'm not that interested.
Russia is not a free country in the way that the country I grew up in is was, and I care about my country being free. That's all I care about. So, whatever. I don't know. I'm not that interested.
I haven't spent a lot of time reading about Navalny. I know this. Him dying during the Munich Security Conference in the middle of the debate on Ukraine funding, both of which they're highly aware of, doesn't help Russia. Yeah. So the people say, oh, Putin just had him murdered last week because They're idiots.
They don't actually know anything. They don't know anything. These are the same people who told us that Ukraine was gonna win. Really? Russia has a 100,000,000 more people and far deeper industrial capacity.
Like, that's insane. No person outside the United States thought that for a second that Ukraine could win. Not maybe they're rooting for Ukraine, maybe not. I mean, who knows? But as a factual matter, the information desert that we live in is really, really scary.
And sometimes I think maybe the average North Korean knows more about what's happening in the world than the average American who watches NBC News because it's just so distorted. The lies are, like, so it's like a vacuum. You don't even like like, the the two facts I just did, Russia has a 100,000,000 more people and the capacity to produce 7 times the number of artillery shells as all of NATO. But those are just two facts that I'm not sure the average person in this country had its ever before. And those are the determinative facts in a ground war.
Do you have more people? Do you have more material? Do you do you have more house or shells? And, like, the people making these decisions, Anthony Blinken, Anthony Blinken. I can't believe that guy is the secretary of state.
What a mediocrity. That he doesn't know that or something? Like, the whole they're just so ignorant that it's scary. Super scary. But I don't know
Speaker 0: if they are ignorant. Look at look at the Iranian policy. Who doesn't know Iran is a terrorist state that really truly means they're going to burn the Jews in the fire of the Islamic fury. Who doesn't know that? Who doesn't know that enough to say, you know what?
We shouldn't send over $8,000,000,000. We we just shouldn't do it. We we shouldn't play
Speaker 1: I got the office. I understand that. And that was, of course, something that Obama did. And there was And quite a bit of debate with party. And he, oh, boy, he pushed it through.
And I've thought about that for almost it's been almost 10 years.
Speaker 0: No. But Biden has Biden, I think, has done another allowed them to dip in to another 6,000,000,000, you know, as long as it's used for peaceful purpose. You don't you would never make that deal with Adolf Hitler. You'd you'd you know who they are. You know, somebody said to me once, is a rattlesnake a bad pet?
No. It's a perfectly fine pet as long as you always remember it's a rattlesnake. Snake. We are treating people who are in our own country like enemies and people who are oppressing people, we're we're treating them like friends.
Speaker 1: I've been an air model for 5 years. They saw my ears and they're immediately like, yes. We can book these
Speaker 0: are oppressing people. We've we're treating them like friends.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I've I've noticed that. And and I have to say the disproportionate outrage at the Russians, is puzzling to me. But again, all of it is playing out against the backdrop that I care about, which is life in the United States. And I feel like we're in a moment where things are moving south at high speed Yes. Particularly the demographic replacement, American citizens being replaced by foreigners who are being encouraged to go into the military.
Let's let's hand them we don't know who they are. They don't know anything about the United States. They may or may not be loyal to it. Let's give them guns. I mean, where do you think that's going, Glenn?
I mean, of course, the military will be used as it was on January 6th as a tool of domestic political control
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Obviously. And it's much easier to do that with foreigners than it is with people who grew up in this country. So that's way scarier than anything that happened to Navalny in some Siberian I mean, I guess it's kind of what I'm saying. It's like I'm against putting Navalny or any political opponents in jail ever, whether it's the January 6th people who are still rotting, whether it's Navalny, whether it's Gonzalo Lyra, the American citizen who died in custody in Ukraine. I mean, I'm opposed to all of that
Speaker 0: stuff.
Speaker 1: But all I don't understand this weird externalizing process of emotion that happens for a lot of well educated Americans where they they don't they're not mad about what's happening around them. They're mad about what's happening in some country they've never been to. It's like, what is that? In other words, it's like you you you've got a kid who's a drug addict, but you don't have time to drive him to rehab because you're sending money to
Speaker 0: The drug company.
Speaker 1: For Quino Plaza or something. No. But you're sending it to, like, some kid you've never met Oh. In a country you've never been to. It's like, what is that?
Yeah.
@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones
RFK JR. Devastates Military Industrial Complex By Explaining True Reasons Behind Russia / Ukraine War https://t.co/wLDVeOuKtE
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Greatest National Leader of Our Time Putin's 2007 Munich Speech: Stark Prophecy or Reasonable Warning That Fell on Deaf Ears? PHENOMINAL speech. EVERYONE needs to hear it!
@KimDotcom - Kim Dotcom
The Ukraine war explained. F++k the US government. https://t.co/7GVAKDeIsl
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Ukraine war has deep historical roots, starting with NATO's expansion after the Cold War, which Russia viewed as a betrayal of promises made during German unification. Key events include the U.S. withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and U.S. involvement in Ukraine's regime change in 2014. Despite Russia's calls to halt NATO's eastward expansion, the U.S. continued its military presence near Russian borders. In late 2021, Russia proposed a security agreement to prevent NATO enlargement, which was rejected. The conflict escalated into war, with significant Ukrainian casualties, as the U.S. and its allies encouraged Ukraine to resist rather than negotiate peace. The narrative surrounding the war often overlooks these complexities, presenting a simplified view of aggression and defense.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me just explain in 2 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 9, 1990. James Baker the 3rd, our secretary of state, said to Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will not move 1 inch eastward if you agree to German unification, basically ending World War 2. 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, 78 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 911 came, then came, Afghanistan, and the Russians said, yeah.
We'll support you. We understand to root out terror. But then came 2 other decisive actions. In 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 2 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 2002. And then in 2003, we invaded Iraq on completely phony pretenses as I've explained. In 2,004, 5, 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 and kind of distantly friends with president Yushchenko, because I was an adviser to the Ukrainian government in 1993, 94, 95. And then the US had its dirty hands in this.
It should not meddle in other countries' elections. But in 2009, Yanukovych won the election, and he became president in 2010 on the basis of neutrality for Ukraine. That calmed things down, 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 February 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 Piatt, 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. Ah, yes.
It was, 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 2004, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, 7 more countries in the not 1 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 December 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. Announced 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? 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 18/23, 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 5 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 600,000 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 can 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
Putin's Prophecy Comes True‼️ Greatest National Leader of Our Time Putin's 2007 Munich Speech: Stark Prophecy or Reasonable Warning That Fell on Deaf Ears? PHENOMINAL speech. EVERYONE needs to hear it! https://t.co/Ww7JXje10G
Video Transcript AI Summary
Спасибо за приглашение на конференцию, где обсуждаются важные вопросы международной безопасности. Безопасность включает не только военно-политическую стабильность, но и экономическую устойчивость, борьбу с бедностью и межцивилизационный диалог. Однополярный мир невозможен и губителен, так как он не учитывает интересы всех стран. Мы наблюдаем рост конфликтов и пренебрежение международным правом, что ведет к гонке вооружений. Необходимо искать баланс интересов и укреплять многостороннюю дипломатию. Россия готова к диалогу по разоружению и поддерживает международные усилия по нераспространению ядерного оружия. Важно создать справедливую экономическую систему, чтобы избежать радикализации и конфликтов. Россия будет продолжать проводить независимую внешнюю политику, стремясь к сотрудничеству с ответственными партнерами.
---
Thank you for the invitation to the conference, where important issues of international security are discussed. Security encompasses not only military-political stability but also economic resilience, poverty alleviation, and inter-civilizational dialogue. A unipolar world is impossible and detrimental, as it does not consider the interests of all countries. We are witnessing an increase in conflicts and disregard for international law, leading to an arms race. It is essential to seek a balance of interests and strengthen multilateral diplomacy. Russia is ready for disarmament dialogue and supports international non-proliferation efforts. It is crucial to create a fair economic system to avoid radicalization and conflicts. Russia will continue to pursue an independent foreign policy, aiming for cooperation with responsible partners.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Спасибо большое, уважаемая госпожа федеральный канцлер, господин Тельчик. Дамы и господа, Весьма признателен за приглашение на столь представительную конференцию, собравшую политиков, военных, предпринимателей, экспертов из более чем 40 стран мира. Формат конференции дает мне возможность избежать излишнего политеса и необходимости говорить округлыми, приятными, но пустыми дипломатическими штампами. Формат конференции позволяет сказать то, что я действительно думаю о проблемах международной безопасности. И если мои рассуждения покажутся нашим коллегам излишне полемически заостренными, либо неточными, я прошу на меня не сердиться, это ведь только конференция.
Я надеюсь, что после двух-трех минут моего выступления господин Пельчак не включит там красный свет. Итак, известно, что проблематика международной безопасности много шире вопросов военно-политической стабильности. Это устойчивость мировой экономики, преодоление бедности, экономическая безопасность и развитие межцивилизационного диалога. Такой всеобъемлющий неделимый характер безопасности выражен и в её базовом принципе. Безопасность каждого это безопасность всех.
Как сказал ещё в первые дни разгоравшейся Второй мировой войны Франклин Рузвельт, где бы ни был нарушен мир, мир повсюду оказывается в безопасности и под угрозой. Эти слова продолжают сохранять актуальность и сегодня. Об этом, кстати, свидетельствует и тема нашей конференции, которая здесь написана Глобальные кризисы, глобальная ответственность. Всего лишь два десятилетия назад мир был идеологически и экономически расколот, а его безопасность обеспечивали огромные стратегические потенциалы двух сверхдержав. Глобальное противостояние отодвигало на периферию международных отношений и повестки дня крайне острые экономические и социальные вопросы.
И как всякая война война холодная оставила нам и неразорвавшиеся снаряды, образно выражаясь. Имею в виду идеологические стереотипы, двойные стандарты, иные шаблоны блокового мышления. Предлагавшийся же после холодной войны однополярный мир тоже не состоялся. История человечества, конечно, знает и периоды однополярного состояния, и стремления к мировому господству. Чего только не было в истории человечества.
Однако, что же такое однополярный мир? Как бы не украшали этот термин, он в конечном итоге означает на практике только одно Это один центр власти, один центр силы, один центр принятия решения. Это мир одного хозяина, одного суверена, и это в конечном итоге губительно не только для всех, кто находится в рамках этой системы, но и для самого суверена, потому что разрушает его изнутри. И это ничего общего не имеет, конечно, с демократией, потому что демократия это, как известно, власть большинства при учете интересов и мнения меньшинства. Кстати говоря, Россию нас постоянно учат демократии, Но те, кто нас учат, сами почему-то учиться не очень хотят.
Считаю, что для современного мира однополярная модель не только неприемлема, но и вообще невозможна. И не только потому, что при единоличном лидерстве в современном, именно в современном мире не будет хватать ни военно-политических, ни экономических ресурсов. Но, что еще важнее, сама модель является неработающей, так как в ее основе нет и не может быть морально-нравственной базы современной цивилизации. Вместе с тем, все, что происходит сегодня в мире, и сейчас мы только вот начали дискутировать об этом, это следствие попыток внедрения именно этой концепции в мировые дела, концепции однополярного мира. А какой результат?
Односторонние, нелегитимные часто действия не решили ни одной проблемы. Более того, они стали генератором новых человеческих трагедий и очагов напряженности. Судите сами, Войн локальных и региональных конфликтов меньше не стало. Господин Тельчик вот об этом очень мягко упомянул. И людей в этих конфликтах гибнет не меньше, а даже больше, чем раньше.
Значительно больше, значительно больше. Сегодня мы наблюдаем почти ничем не сдерживаемое, гипертрофированное применение силы в международных делах, военной силы. Силы, ввергающие мир в пучину следующих один за другим конфликтов. В результате не хватает сил на комплексное решение ни одного из них. Становится невозможным и их политическое решение.
Мы видим все большее пренебрежение основополагающими принципами международного права. Больше того, отдельные нормы, да по сути чуть ли не вся система права одного государства, прежде всего конечно в Соединенных Штатах, перешагнула свои национальные границы и по сути во всех сферах и в экономике, и в политике, и в гуманитарной сфере навязывается другим государствам. Ну кому это понравится? В международных делах все чаще встречаются стремления решить тот или иной вопрос исходя из так называемой политической целесообразности, основанной на текущей политической конъюнктуре. И это, конечно, крайне опасно и ведет к тому, что никто уже не чувствует себя в безопасности.
Я хочу это подчеркнуть: никто не чувствует себя в безопасности, потому что никто не может спрятаться за международным правом, как за каменной стеной. Такая политика является, конечно, катализатором гонки вооружений. Доминирование фактора силы неизбежно подпитывает тягу ряда стран к обладанию оружием массового уничтожения. Более того, появились принципиально новые угрозы, которые и раньше были известны, но сегодня приобретают глобальный характер, такие как терроризм. Убежден, мы подошли к тому рубежному моменту, когда должны серьезно задуматься над всей архитектурой глобальной безопасности.
И здесь надо отталкиваться от поиска разумного баланса между интересами всех субъектов международного общения. Тем более сейчас, когда международный ландшафт столь ощутимо и столь быстро меняется. Меняется за счет динамичного развития целого ряда государств и регионов. Госпожа федеральный канцлер упомянул уже об этом. Так, суммарный ВВП Индии и Китая по паритетной покупательной способности уже больше, чем у Соединенных Штатов Америки.
А рассчитанный по тому же принципу ВВП государств группы БРИК превосходит совокупный ВВП Евросоюза. И по оценкам экспертов, в обозримой исторической перспективе этот разрыв будет только возрастать. Не стоит сомневаться, что экономический потенциал новых центров мирового роста будет неизбежно конвертироваться в политическое влияние и укреплять будет многополярность. В этой связи серьезно возрастает роль многосторонней дипломатии. Открытость, транспарентность и предсказуемость политики безальтернативны, а применение силы должно быть действительно исключительной мерой, так же, как и применение смертной казни в правовых системах некоторых государств.
Сегодня же мы, наоборот, наблюдаем ситуацию, когда страны, в которых применение смертной казни запрещено даже в отношении убийц и других преступников, опасных преступников. Несмотря на это, такие страны легко идут на участие в военных операциях, которые трудно назвать легитимными. А ведь в этих конфликтах гибнут люди, сотни, тысячи мирных людей. Но в то же время возникает вопрос, разве мы должны безучастно и безвольно взирать на различные внутренние конфликты в отдельных странах, на действия авторитарных режимов, тиранов, на распространение оружия массового уничтожения. Именно это и лежало в основе вопроса, который был задан федеральному канцлеру нашим уважаемым коллегой господином Либерманом.
Я правильно понял ваш вопрос? И конечно это вопрос серьезный. Можем ли мы безучастно смотреть на то, что происходит? Я попробую ответить на ваш вопрос тоже. Конечно, мы не должны смотреть безучастно, конечно нет.
Но есть ли у нас средства, чтобы противостоять этим угрозам? Конечно, есть. Достаточно вспомнить недавнюю историю. Ведь произошел же мирный переход к демократии в нашей стране. Ведь состоялась же мирная трансформация советского режима.
Мирная трансформация. И какого режима? С каким количеством оружия, в том числе ядерного оружия? Почему же сейчас при каждом удобном случае нужно бомбить и стрелять? Неужели в условиях отсутствия угрозы взаимного уничтожения нам не хватает политической культуры, уважения к ценностям демократии и к праву?
Убеждён, единственным механизмом принятия решения по использованию военной силы, как последнего довода, может быть только уставован. И в этой связи я или не понял то, что было сказано вот совсем недавно нашим коллегой министром обороны Италии, либо он выразился неточно. Я, во всяком случае, услышал, что легитимным применение силы может считаться только в том случае, если решение принято в НАТО или в Евросоюзе, или в ООН. Если он действительно так считает, то у нас с ним разные точки зрения или я ослышался. Легитимным можно считать применение силы только если решение принято на основе и в рамках ООН.
И не надо применять Организацию Объединенных Наций ни НАТО, ни Евросоюзу. И когда ООН будет реально объединять силы международного сообщества, которое может действительно действительно может реагировать на события в отдельных странах. Когда мы избавимся от пренебрежения международным правом, то ситуация может измениться. В противном случае ситуация будет заходить лишь в тупик и умножать количество тяжелых ошибок. При этом, конечно, нужно добиваться того, чтобы международное право имело универсальный характер и в понимании, и в применении норм.
И нельзя забывать, что демократический образ действий в политике обязательно предполагает дискуссию и кропотливую выработку решений. Уважаемые дамы и господа, потенциальная опасность дестабилизации международных отношений связана и с очевидным застоем в области разоружения. Россия выступает за возобновление диалога по этому важнейшему вопросу. Важно сохранить устойчивость международно-правовой разоруженческой базы. При этом обеспечить преемственность процесса сокращения ядерных вооружений.
Мы договорились с Соединенными Штатами Америки о сокращении наших ядерных потенциалов на стратегических носителях до 1700-2200 ядерных боезарядов к 31 декабря 2012 года. Россия намерена строго выполнять взятые на себя обязательства. Надеемся, что и наши партнеры будут действовать так же транспарентно и не будут откладывать на всякий случай, на черный день, лишнюю пару сотен ядерных боезарядов. И если сегодня новый министр обороны Соединенных Штатов здесь нам объявят, что Соединенные Штаты не будут прятать эти заряды лишние ни на складах, ни под подушкой, ни под одеялом, я предлагаю всем встать и стоя это поприветствовать. Это было бы очень важное заявление.
Россия строго придерживается и намерена в дальнейшем придерживаться договора о нераспространении ядерного оружия и многостороннего режима контроля за ракетными технологиями. Принципы, заложенные в этих документах, носят универсальный характер. В этой связи хотел бы вспомнить, что в 80-е годы СССР и Соединенные Штаты подписали договор о ликвидации целого класса ракет средней и малой дальности. Но универсального характера этому документу придано не было. Сегодня такие ракеты уже имеют целый ряд стран: Корейская Народно-Демократическая Республика, Республика Корея, Индия, Иран, Пакистан, Израиль.
Многие другие государства мира разрабатывают эти системы и планируют поставить их на вооружение. И только Соединенные Штаты Америки и Россия несут обязательство не создавать подобных систем вооружений. Ясно, что в этих условиях мы вынуждены задуматься об обеспечении своей собственной безопасности. Вместе с тем нельзя допустить появления новых достабилизирующих, высокотехнологичных видов оружия. Я уже не говорю о мерах по предупреждению новых сфер конфронтации, особенно в космосе.
Звездные войны, как известно, уже не фантастика, а реальность. Еще в середине 80-х годов наши американские партнеры на практике провели перехват собственного спутника. Милитаризация космоса, по мнению России, может спровоцировать непредсказуемые для мирового сообщества последствия, не меньшие, чем начало ядерной эры. И мы не раз выступали с инициативами, направленными на недопущение оружия в космос. Сегодня хотел бы проинформировать вас о том, что нами подготовлен проект договора о предотвращении размещения оружия в космическом пространстве.
В ближайшее время он будет направлен партнерам в качестве официального предложения. Давайте работать над этим вместе. Нас также не могут не тревожить планы по развертыванию элементов системы противоракетной обороны в Европе. Кому нужен очередной виток неизбежной в этом случае гонки вооружений? Глубоко сомневаюсь, что самим европейцам.
Ракетного оружия, реально угрожающего Европе, с дальностью действия порядка 5-8 тысяч километров нет ни у одной так называемой из проблемных стран. И в будущем в обозримой перспективе и не появится, не предвидится даже. Да и гипотетический пуск, например, северокорейской ракеты по территории США через Западную Европу это явно противоречит законам баллистики. Как говорят у нас в России это все равно, что правой рукой дотягиваться до левого уха. И находясь здесь, в Германии, не могу не упомянуть и о кризисном состоянии договора об обычных вооруженных силах в Европе.
Адаптированный договор об обычных вооруженных силах в Европе был подписан в 1999 году. Он учитывал новую геополитическую реальность ликвидацию Варшавского блока. С тех пор прошло 7 лет, и только четыре государства ратифицировали этот документ, включая Российскую Федерацию. Страны НАТО открыто заявили, что не ратифицируют договор, включая положения о фланговых ограничениях, о размещении на флангах определенного количества вооруженных сил до тех пор, пока Россия не выведет свои базы из Грузии и Молдавии. Из Грузии наши войска выводятся, причем даже в ускоренном порядке.
Эти проблемы мы с нашими грузинскими коллегами решили, и это всем известно. В Молдавии остается группировка в 1500 военнослужащих, которые выполняют миротворческие функции и охраняют склады с боеприпасами, оставшиеся со времен СССР. И мы с господином Соланой обсуждаем постоянно этот вопрос, он знает нашу позицию, мы готовы и дальше работать по этому направлению. Но что же происходит в это же самое время? А в это самое время в Болгарии и Румынии появляются так называемые легкие американские передовые базы по 5000 штыков в каждой.
Получается, что НАТО выдвигает свои передовые силы к нашим государственным границам, А мы, строго выполняя договор, никак не реагируем на эти действия. Думаю, очевидно, процесс НАТОвского расширения не имеет никакого отношения к модернизации самого Альянса или к обеспечению безопасности в Европе. Наоборот, это серьезно провоцирующий фактор, снижающий уровень взаимного доверия. И у нас есть справедливое право откровенно спросить против кого это расширение. И что стало с теми заверениями, которые давались западными партнерами после роспуска Варшавского договора?
Где теперь эти заявления? О них даже никто не помнит, Но я позволю себе напомнить в этой аудитории, что было сказано. Хотел бы привести цитату из выступления генерального секретаря НАТО господина Вернера в Брюсселе 17 мая 1990 года. Он тогда сказал: Сам факт, что мы готовы не размещать войска НАТО за пределами территории ФРГ, дает Советскому Союзу твердые гарантии безопасности. Где эта гарантия?
Камни и бетонные блоки берлинской стены давно разошлись на сувениры. Но нельзя забывать, что ее падение стало возможным в том числе и благодаря историческому выбору, в том числе нашего народа, народа России. Выбору в пользу демократии и свободы, открытости и искреннего партнерства со всеми членами большой европейской семьи. Сейчас же нам пытаются навязать уже новые разделительные линии и стены, пусть виртуальные, но все-таки разделяющие, разрезающие наш общий континент? Неужели вновь потребуются долгие годы и десятилетия смена нескольких поколений политиков, чтобы разобрать и демонтировать эти новые стены?
Уважаемые дамы и господа, мы однозначно выступаем и за укрепление режима нераспространения. Существующая международно-правовая база позволяет создать технологии по выработке ядерного топлива для использования его в мирных целях. И многие страны с полным на то основанием хотят создавать собственную ядерную энергетику, как основу их энергетической независимости. Но мы также понимаем, что эти технологии могут быть быстро трансформированы в получение оружейных материалов. Это вызывает серьезное международное напряжение.
Яркий тому пример ситуация с иранской ядерной программой. Если международное сообщество не выработает разумного решения этого конфликта интересов, мир и дальше будет потрясать подобные дестабилизирующие кризисы. Потому что пороговых стран больше, чем Иран. И мы с вами об этом знаем. Мы будем постоянно сталкиваться с угрозой распространения оружия массового уничтожения.
В прошлом году Россия выступила с инициативой создания многонациональных центров по обогащению урана. Мы открыты к тому, чтобы подобные центры создавались не только в России, но и в других странах, где на легитимной основе существует мирная ядерная энергетика. Государства, желающие развивать атомную энергетику, могли бы гарантированно получать топливо через непосредственное участие в работе этих центров, конечно же, под строгим контролем МАГАТЭ. С российским предложением созвучны и последние инициативы президента США Джорджа Буша. Считаю, что Россия и США объективно и в одинаковой степени заинтересованы в ужесточении режимов нераспространения оружия массового уничтожения и средств его доставки.
Именно наши страны, являющиеся лидерами по ядерному и ракетному потенциалу, должны стать и лидерами в разработке новых, более жестких мер в сфере нераспространения. Россия готова к такой работе, мы ведем консультации с нашими американскими друзьями. В целом, речь должна идти о создании целой системы политических рычагов и экономических стимулов. Стимулов, при которых государства были бы заинтересованы не создавать собственные мощности ядерного топливного цикла, но имели бы возможность развивать атомную энергетику, укрепляя свой энергетический потенциал. В этой связи подробнее остановлюсь на международном энергетическом сотрудничестве.
Госпожа федеральный канцлер тоже об этом коротко, но упомянула, затронула эту тему. В энергетической сфере Россия ориентируется на создание единых для всех рыночных принципов и прозрачных условий. Очевидно, что цена на энергоносители должна определяться рынком, а не являться предметом политических спекуляций, экономического давления или шантажа. Мы открыты для сотрудничества. Зарубежные компании участвуют в наших крупнейших энергетических проектах.
По различным оценкам до 26% добычи нефти в России, вдумайтесь в эту цифру, пожалуйста, до 26% добычи нефти в России приходится на иностранный капитал. Попробуйте, попробуйте привести мне пример подобного широкого присутствия российского бизнеса в ключевых отраслях экономики западных государств. Нет таких примеров. Таких примеров нет. Напомню также о соотношении инвестиций, поступающих в Россию и идущих из России в другие страны мира.
Соотношение примерно 15 к 1. Вот вам зримый пример открытости и стабильности российской экономики. Экономическая безопасность это сфера, где всем следует придерживаться единых принципов. Мы готовы честно конкурировать. Для этого у российской экономики появляется всё больше возможностей.
Такую динамику объективно оценивают эксперты и наши зарубежные партнеры. Так, недавно был повышен рейтинг России в ОАЭСР. Из четвертой группы риска наша страна перешла в третью. И хотел бы, пользуясь случаем, здесь сегодня в Мюнхене поблагодарить наших немецких коллег за содействие в принятии вышеназванного решения. Далее, как вы знаете, процесс присоединения России к ВТО вышел на финальную стадию.
Отмечу, что в ходе долгих, непростых переговоров слова о свободе, мы не расслышали слова о свободе слова, о свободе торговли, о равных возможностях, но почему-то исключительно применительно к нашему, к российскому рынку. И еще одна важная тема, прямо влияющая на глобальную безопасность. Сегодня много говорят о борьбе с бедностью. Что здесь происходит на самом деле? С одной стороны, на программы помощи беднейшим странам выделяются финансовые ресурсы и подчас немаленькие финансовые ресурсы.
Но по-честному, и здесь многие тоже это знают, зачастую под освоение компаниями самих же стран доноров. Но в то же время, с другой стороны, в развитых странах сохраняются субсидии в сельском хозяйстве, ограничивается для других доступ к высоким технологиям. И давайте называть вещи своими именами. Получается, что одной рукой раздается благотворительная помощь, а другой не только консервируется экономическая отсталость, а еще и собирается прибыль. Возникающее социальное напряжение в таких депрессивных регионах неизбежно выливаются в рост радикализма, экстремизма, подпитывая терроризм и локальные конфликты.
А если все это вдобавок происходит, скажем, на Ближнем Востоке, в условиях обостренного восприятия внешнего мира как несправедливого, то возникает риск для глобальной дестабилизации. Очевидно, что ведущие страны мира должны видеть эту угрозу и, соответственно, выстраивать более демократическую, справедливую систему экономических отношений в мире. Систему, дающую всем шанс и возможность для развития. Выступая на конференции по безопасности, уважаемые дамы и господа, нельзя обойти молчанием и деятельность организации по безопасности и сотрудничеству в Европе. Как известно, она была создана, чтобы рассматривать все, я подчеркну это, все аспекты безопасности: военно-политические, экономические, гуманитарные, причем в их взаимосвязи.
Сегодня что мы видим на практике? Мы видим, что этот баланс явно нарушен. ОБСЕ пытаются превратить в вульгарный инструмент обеспечения внешнеполитических интересов одной или группы стран в отношении других стран. И под эту задачу вскрыли и бюрократический аппарат ОБСЕ, который абсолютно никак не связан с государствами учредителей. Скроили под эту задачу процедуры принятия решений и использования так называемых неправительственных организаций, формально независимых, но целенаправленно финансируемых, а значит подконтрольных.
Согласно основополагающим документам, в гуманитарной сфере ОБСВ призваны оказывать странам-членам по их просьбе содействие в соблюдении международных норм в области прав человека. Это важная задача, мы ее поддерживаем, но вовсе это не означает вмешательства во внутренние дела других стран, тем более не навязывание этим государствам того, как они должны жить и развиваться. Очевидно, что такое вмешательство отнюдь не способствует вызреванию подлинных демократических государств и, наоборот, делает их зависимыми и, как следствие, нестабильными в политическом и в экономическом плане. Мы рассчитываем на то, что ОБСЕ будет руководствоваться своими непосредственными задачами и выстраивать отношения с суверенными государствами на основе уважения, доверия и транспарентности. Уважаемые дамы и господа, в заключение хотел бы отметить следующее.
Мы очень часто, и я лично очень часто, слышу призывы к России со стороны наших партнеров, в том числе и со стороны европейских партнеров, играть более и более активную роль в мировых делах. В этой связи позволю себе сделать одну маленькую ремарку. Вряд ли нас нужно подталкивать и стимулировать к этому. Россия страна с более чем тысячелетней историей, и практически всегда она пользовалась привилегией проводить независимую внешнюю политику. Мы не собираемся изменять этой традиции и сегодня.
Вместе с тем мы хорошо видим, как изменился мир, реалистично оцениваем свои собственные возможности и свой собственный потенциал. И, конечно, нам бы также хотелось иметь дело с ответственными и тоже самостоятельными партнерами, с которыми мы вместе могли бы работать над строительством справедливого и демократического мироустройства, обеспечивая в нем безопасность и процветание не для избранных, а для всех. Благодарю вас за внимание.
@MyLordBebo - Lord Bebo
🇷🇺🇺🇦Full interview with Putin today. He talks about that the war wouldn’t have happened if Trump’s election wouldn’t be stolen, willingness to negotiate with Ukraine and the problems with it, sanctions and much more. https://t.co/Xheth1kad6
Video Transcript AI Summary
Вопрос о возможной встрече с президентом США Трампом и украинском урегулировании остается актуальным. Россия не отказывалась от контактов с США, хотя предыдущая администрация их избегала. Трамп и я имели деловые, доверительные отношения. Если бы он был президентом в 2020 году, возможно, кризиса в Украине удалось бы избежать. Однако его администрация также вводила санкции против России, что не способствовало интересам обеих стран. Мы открыты к переговорам по украинской проблематике, но действующий запрет на переговоры со стороны Киева создает препятствия. Существуют точки соприкосновения между нашими странами в вопросах стратегической стабильности и экономики. Мы готовы к диалогу, но это зависит от выбора американской администрации.
---
The question of a possible meeting with President Trump and the Ukrainian settlement remains relevant. Russia has not refused contacts with the US, although the previous administration avoided them. Trump and I had business, trusting relations. If he had been president in 2020, the crisis in Ukraine might have been avoided. However, his administration also imposed sanctions on Russia, which did not serve the interests of both countries. We are open to negotiations on the Ukrainian issue, but the current ban on negotiations from Kyiv creates obstacles. There are points of convergence between our countries on strategic stability and economic issues. We are ready for dialogue, but this depends on the choice of the American administration.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Пожалуйста, можно один очень важный вопрос, Владимир Владимирович? Извините, пожалуйста, капитан Анатольевич. За последние дни вступивший в должность президент США Трамп сделал множество самых разных заявлений о возможной встрече с вами и о перспективах украинского урегулирования. Хотелось узнать
Speaker 1: ваше мнение. Действительно, президент сделал Соединенные Штаты много по этому поводу заявлений. Во-первых, хочу сказать, что Россия никогда не отказалась от контактов с администрацией Соединенных Штатов. И не наша вина в том, что прежняя администрация от этих контактов отказалась. С нынешним президентом США у меня всегда были деловые, исключительно деловые, но в то же время прамматические отношения и доверительные, я бы сказал.
Я не могу не согласиться с ним в том, что если бы он был президентом, если бы у него в 2020 году не украли победу, то может быть и не было бы того кризиса на Украине, который возник в 2022 году. Хотя известно, что Трамп, будучи президентом, в первой своей итерации ввел тоже значительное количество на тот момент самое большое количество ограничений, санкций против России. Не думаю, что это было решением, которое соответствовало интересам не только России, но и самих Соединенных Штатов. Кстати говоря, Байден подхватил эту эстафетную палочку и вводил еще больше ограничений, а результат известен. Очень много решений вредных для экономики самих Соединенных Штатов, например, подтачивание могущества самого доллара, потому что запрет России использовать доллар, а мы не отказывались от доллара, это администрация прежняя не дала нам возможность использовать доллар в качестве расчетной единицы.
Он, на мой взгляд, наносит это решение наносит очень серьезный урон самим Соединенным Штатам. Но сейчас вдаваться в это не будем, но могу только сказать, что что мы видим заявление действующего президента о готовности к совместной работе. Мы всегда для этого открыты. Что касается вопроса связанного, скажем, с переговорами, тоже в этом смысле мы всегда говорили, хочу это подчеркнуть еще раз, мы готовы к этим переговорам по украинской проблематике, но здесь тоже есть вопросы, которые требуют особого внимания. Например, как известно, действующий глава режима в Киеве, когда еще был достаточно легитимным главой государства, издал декрет о запрете ведения переговоров.
Как же сейчас можно возобновлять переговоры, если они запрещены? Вот мы сейчас находимся в стенах Московского университета, я по базовому образованию, как известно юрист, закончил юридический факультет Петербургского, тогда Ленинградского университета. Я могу вам сказать, что если в рамках действующей нормативной базы переговоры начнутся, то они будут, строго говоря, нелегитимными. А это значит, что и результаты этих переговоров можно будет объявить нелегитимными. Действующий режим в Киеве с удовольствием получает сотни миллиардов от своих спонсоров.
Извините за простоту выражений, за простоту народных выражений, как у нас говорят в народе хомячат с удовольствием эти сотни миллиардов за обе щеки, но выполнять указания своих спонсоров а мы знаем, что такие указания есть отменять принятый указ о запрете переговоров не спешит. Я думаю, что в конце концов те, кто платит деньги, должны все-таки заставить его это сделать. И думаю, что ему это сделать придется. Но пока этот декрет не отменен, говорить о том, что могут быть начаты и, самое главное, закончены должным образом эти переговоры, достаточно сложно. Какие-то предварительные наметки, конечно, можно сделать, но серьезных переговорах, о серьезных переговорах, конечно, в условиях запрета с украинской стороны вести эти переговоры, конечно, в условиях этого запрета говорить о чем-то серьезном достаточно сложно.
А в целом у нас, конечно, с действующей администрацией может быть достаточно много точек соприкосновения, поиска решения по ключевым вопросам сегодняшнего дня. Это и вопросы стратегической стабильности, это вопросы экономики, кстати говоря. Ну почему? Мы одни из крупнейших производителей в мире, скажем, нефти. США сейчас вообще занимает первое место, потом Саудовская Аравия, Россия.
Но что характерно для российской и, допустим, американской экономик: мы не просто одни из крупнейших производителей энергоресурсов, мы еще и крупнейшие потребители энергоресурсов. А это значит, что как для нашей, так и для американской экономики И слишком высокие цены плохо, потому что производить надо внутри страны. Используя это используя энергоносители, нужно производить другие товары внутри страны. И слишком низкие цены тоже очень плохо, потому что это подрывает инвестиционные возможности энергетических компаний. Здесь есть о чем нам поговорить, есть и другие вопросы в сфере энергетики, которые могут представлять взаимный интерес.
Я, кстати говоря, в этом смысле сомневаюсь, чтобы действующий президент Соединенных Штатов господин Трамп, повторяю, еще мы с ним работали в первый его период президентства, чтобы он принял какие-то решения, даже если мы слышим о возможности введения дополнительных санкций в отношении России. Я сомневаюсь, что он будет принимать такие решения, которые будут наносить вред самой американской экономике. Он человек не только умный, он прагматичный человек. Я с трудом себе представляю, что будут решения приняты, наносящие ущерб самой американской экономике. Поэтому, скорее всего, действительно, нам лучше встретиться, опираясь на реалии сегодняшнего дня, поговорить спокойно по всем тем направлениям, которые представляют интерес как для США, так и для России.
Мы готовы, но, повторю, это прежде всего, конечно, зависит от решения и выбора действующей американской администрации.
@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
@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones
WWIII ALERT: Putin Sends Chilling Nuclear War Threat, Says “Unstoppable Missile” Can Strike Anywhere On Earth! https://t.co/tgmXa5vKJe
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: The transcript portrays Putin issuing a chilling World War III threat with a flying Chernobyl-style nuclear weapon. The classified missile is rumored to reach Mach 15, change direction midair, and the Russians believe no one can shoot it down. They’ve already tested earlier versions on Ukraine. Even with high-tech missile defense systems, it cannot be stopped. Russia reportedly has hypersonic missiles that fly hundreds of feet above the ground, alongside ballistic missiles. The speaker asserts the Russians have it all, and that the US says Russia is ahead of us in hypersonic missiles. The Pentagon is described as keeping most powerful capabilities secret, with about two generations of weapons tucked away. The speaker claims Russia has almost a two-to-one nuclear superiority over the US, and that once war starts, nobody wins: even if 95% of missiles are shot down, they would still flatten every city and military base. A classified unnamed ballistic missile is shown dropping many dummy warheads as a demonstration.
The narrative references alleged testing in Ukraine and notes a claim that a demonstration MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) was presented: a demonstration that Russia can penetrate defenses and deliver nuclear payloads, though no warheads were involved in that particular display. The speaker recalls Biden announcing long-range cruise missiles, and Putin responding by attacking a missile factory, with subsequent release of photos showing holes in the centers of buildings within the factory. Western media allegedly dismissed these as not powerful missiles, but the speaker counters that it was a MIRV demonstration, and Russia later confirmed the demonstration of capability to field nuclear payloads.
The speaker also claims Trump is frustrated with NATO and the EU, accusing them of starting the war with Russia and not wanting it to end. It is stated that Trump decided, over a week prior, not to provide Tomahawks to Zelenskyy. In response, EU and NATO are said to be supplying comparable or more advanced weapons to Ukraine, which would escalate the conflict on the escalatory ladder. Putin is said to be amassing nuclear weapons and attack submarines, with references to maps in the Daily Mail illustrating Russia’s buildup in the Arctic Circle as preparations for war with NATO are described. A segment mentions footage of the Skyfall ballistic missile factory.
Speaker 1: Closing outro promoting Infowars, urging followers to connect on X (Twitter) at real Alex Jones and at AJN Live, and to download the Alex Jones app, urging support against the “democrat deep state party” and declaring that they will never be silenced.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Putin sends chilling World War three threat with flying Chernobyl nuke. The classified missile is rumored to go up to Mach 15, can change direction midair, and the Russians believe no one has any chance of shooting it down. They've already tested earlier versions of it on Ukraine, and you notice even with high-tech missile defense systems, it it cannot be stopped. And so they have hypersonic missiles that fly hundreds of feet above the ground. They have ballistic missiles.
The Russians have it all. Trump knows that NATO and the EU started the war with Russia. They don't want it to end. Trump has become increasingly frustrated with it. He decided over a week ago not to give Tomahawks to Zelenskyy.
And so now, the EU and NATO say they are gonna give comparable or even more advanced weapons to them, which will lead to absolute escalation on the escalatory ladder. Well, Putin is amassing nuclear weapons and attack submarines. There's excellent maps in the Daily Mail that show this we can pull up. In the Arctic Circle, as Russia prepares for war with NATO, there is no doubt that that's going on. Showing you some footage here of the Skyfall ballistic missile factory.
Putin sends chilling World War three threat with flying Chernobyl nuke. The classified missile is rumored to go up to Mach 15, can change direction midair, and the Russians believe no one has any chance of shooting it down. They've already tested earlier versions of it on Ukraine, and you notice even with high-tech missile defense systems, it it cannot be stopped. And so, they have hypersonic missiles that fly hundreds of feet above the ground. They have ballistic missiles.
The Russians have it all. And, The US says Russia is ahead of us in hypersonic missiles. I I know one thing about the Pentagon, they have got most of the really powerful stuff is secret. Pentagon always keeps about two generations of weapons up their sleeve, but it doesn't matter. The Russians have almost a two to one nuke superiority to The US.
And once this starts, it it doesn't matter who wins because nobody wins. We we could shoot down 95% of their missiles and they'd still completely destroy us. Every city, every military base will be just flattened. Yeah. Here's a classified unnamed ballistic missile and it it dropped a whole bunch of dummy warheads, no explosives in them as a demonstration.
Remember that? Right when Biden said, I'm gonna give long range cruise missiles. And Putin said, okay, watch this. And he hit a missile factory, and later they released the photos of it, and it showed a whole bunch of these buildings with perfect holes right in the center of each one. And the Western media went, look, not a powerful missile.
Because it didn't even have warheads on it, dumbass. It was MIRV demonstration. And I said that, and a week later Russia said, yes, we were demonstrating that we can get through your defenses and would deliver nuclear payloads. We just sent a demonstration.
Speaker 1: Whatever the future may hold, Infowars will always live forever. The fights will continue. Be sure to follow us on x at real alex jones and at a j n live. And now you can download the number one news app in the world. Go to alexjonesapp.com, and let the democrat deep state party know that we will never be silenced.