reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@MyLordBebo - Lord Bebo
Must watch: Max Blumenthal deconstructs the corruption and lies of the Ukraine war. -> Bravo Sir!
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes the US government's funding of the proxy war in Ukraine, arguing that it prioritizes military aid over domestic infrastructure. They highlight the lack of transparency and accountability in the allocation of tax dollars, revealing questionable payments and arms deals. The speaker questions the wisdom of escalating the conflict with Russia, pointing out the potential for nuclear annihilation. They also criticize the erosion of democracy in Ukraine and the profit-seeking motives of individuals involved in the war. The speaker calls on the UN Security Council to enforce the UN Charter and monitor NATO's actions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: To Mr. Max Blumenthal. Thank you. And I thank, Alex Rubinstein and Wyatt Reed for helping me prepare this address. Wyatt Reed is a journalistic colleague of mine who, in October 2022, happened to be in Donetsk when his hotel was shelled by the Ukrainian military with a apparently US made howitzer nearly killing him, he was a 100 meters away.
I'm also here with my friend, the civil rights activist, Randy Kredico, who is more recently in Donetsk, can witness regular HIMARS attacks on civilian targets. I am here not only as a journalist who has spent over 20 years writing books, doing producing documentaries and writing articles about conflict and politics from several continents. I'm also here as an American taxpayer who's been dragooned into funding a proxy war that has become a threat to the regional and international stability at the expense of my countrymen and women. This June just June 28th, as emergency crews work to clean up yet another toxic train derailment in the United States, this time on the Montana River, further exposing our nation's chronically underfunded infrastructure and its threats to our health. The Pentagon announced plans to send an additional $500,000,000 worth of military aid to Ukraine.
The development came as Ukraine's army enters the 3rd week of a vaunted counter offensive that DNN describes as, quote, not meeting expectations, in which even Volodymyr Zelensky says is going slower than desired. As Ukraine's military failed to breach Russia's primary defense line, CNN reported on June 12th that Kyiv had lost, quote, lost 16 US made armored vehicles sent to the country. So what did the Pentagon do? It simply passed that bill down to average US taxpayers like myself, charging us another 325,000,000 to replace Ukraine's squandered military stock. There was zero effort to consult the US public's position on the matter and the vast majority of Americans likely did not even know the exchange took place.
This policy that I'm describing to you, which sees Washington Washington prioritize unrestrained funding for a proxy war with a nuclear power in a foreign land where our while our domestic infrastructure falls apart before our eyes, exposes a disturbing dynamic at the heart of the Ukraine conflict. An international Ponzi scheme that enables Western elites to seize hard earned wealth from the hands of average US citizens and funnel it into the coffers of a foreign government that even Transparency International ranks as consistently one of the most corrupt in Europe. The US government has yet to conduct an official audit of its funding for Ukraine. The American public has no idea where their tax dollars are going. And that's why this week, we at the Grey Zone published an independent audit of US tax tax dollar allocation to Ukraine throughout the fiscal years 2022 and 23.
Our investigation was led by Heather Kaiser, a former military intelligence officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. We found, among many bizarre payments, a $4,500,000 payment from the U. S. Social Security Administration to the Kyiv government. We found $4,500,000,000 worth of payments from the US Agency For International Development to pay off Ukraine's sovereign debt, much of what is which is owned by the global investment firm BlackRock, that amounts to $30 taken from every US citizen at a time when 4 in 10 Americans cannot afford a $400 emergency.
We found tax dollars earmarked for Ukraine padding the budgets of a television station in Toronto, a pro NATO think tank in Poland, and believe it or not, even rural farmers in Kenya. We found tens of millions to private equity firms, including 1 in the Republic of Georgia, as well as a $1,000,000 payment to a single private entrepreneur in Kyiv. Our audit also revealed the Pentagon's $4,500,000 contract with a company called Atlantic Diving Supply to provide Ukraine with unspecified explosives equipment. This is a notoriously corrupt company that none other than Tom Tillis, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, previously lambasted for its, quote, history of fraud. Once again, Congress has failed to ensure these shady payments and massive arms deals are properly tracked.
In fact, much of the military and humanitarian age shift to Ukraine has simply vanished. Last year, CBS News quoted the director of a pro Zelensky non profit in Ukraine who reported that only 30% of aid was reaching the front lines. The embezzlement of funds and supplies is at least as troubling as the potential consequences of the illicit transfer and sales of military grade weapons. Last June, the head of Interpol warned that the massive transfers of arms into Ukraine means, quote, we can expect an influx of weapons in Europe and beyond and that criminals are now, as we speak, focusing on them. This May, a group of anti Kremlin Russian exiles outfitted with gear plight by the Ukrainian government was hailed by Western politicians for carrying out terrorist attacks in Russian territory using American made Humvees.
Although the group, the so called Russian Volunteer Corps, is led by a man who calls himself the, quote, white king and includes numerous open admirers of Adolf Hitler, described as Neo Nazis in US mainstream media, the western weaponization of this militia against Russian forces and Russian civilians has not prompted any outcry from Congress. And while the Biden administration has promised that it's keeping tabs on the weapons sent, a state department cable leaked last December conceded that, quote, kinetic activity and active combat between Ukrainian and Russian forces create an environment in which standard verification measures are sometimes impracticable or impossible. The Biden administration not only knows that it cannot track the weapons it's shipping to Ukraine, it knows that it is escalating a proxy war against the world's largest nuclear power and daring it to respond in kind. We know this because back in 2014, and this time line is so important, that's when NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said that the war started following a US backed coup d'etat, president Barack Obama rejected demands from Kyiv to send lethal offensive weaponry because as the Wall Street Journal put it, he had a, quote, long standing concern that arming Ukraine would provoke Moscow into further escalation that would drag Washington into a proxy to the war.
When Donald Trump entered office in 2017, he attempted to hold the line on Barack Obama's policy but was soon branded a Russian puppet by the Beltway press corps and the Democratic Party for refusing to send Raytheon's Javelin missiles to the Ukrainian military. His reluctance to send the javelins became a central theme of his impeachment, and he predictably relented as US made defensive weaponry began to reach the front lines of the Donbas. The collective west exploited the Minsk Accords to, quote, give Ukraine time to arm up, as the former German chancellor Angela Merkel put it. In January 2022, the US announced a $200,000,000 arms package to Ukraine. Follow the time line.
By the 18th February, observers from the Organization For Security and Co operation in Europe reported a doubling in ceasefire violations with OSCE maps showing the overwhelming majority of targeted sites on the side of pro Russian separatists in Donetsk and Lugansk. 5 days later, Russia invaded Ukraine. And since then, the US and its allies have have been scurrying up the escalation ladder at every opportunity. Quote, things we couldn't give in January because it was escalatory. We're given in February, a former State Department official complained after meeting with Ukrainian counterparts.
And things we couldn't give in February, we can in April. That has been the distinct pattern starting with, for crying out loud, stingers, referring to shoulder mounted rockets. Joe Biden himself said in March 2022, the idea that we're gonna send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks, don't kid yourself. No matter what you all say, that's called World War 3. Just over a year later, Biden changed his tune backing a plan to provide F 16 Fighter Jets to Ukraine and after pressuring Germany to send in the tanks he once feared would provoke World War 3.
It'll only take 2 months from the time Ukraine received HIMARS. Lockheed made HIMARS systems for the US for the for the Ukrainian military to begin targeting critical infrastructure, using them to strike the Antonovsky Bridge over the Dniepril River and again, 2 months later, in a test strike on the Khakhovka Dam to see if the Dnieper's water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings, as the Washington Post reported. 3 weeks ago, the Khakhovka dam was destroyed, triggering a major environmental catastrophe that caused mass flooding and contamination of the local water supply. Ukraine, of course, blames Russia for this attack, but has produced no evidence. Around this time, Ukraine also baselessly accused Russia of planning a provocation at the Zaporozhia nuclear plant.
This triggered a resolution by senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal, no relation to me, calling for NATO to intervene directly in Ukraine and attack Russia if such an incident occurred. The move by Blumenthal and Graham thus established established a de facto red line for initiating US military action, much like the one set down in Syria, which as a former US diplomat commented to journalist Charles Glass was an open invitation to a false flag. Will we see another doom of deception, but this time in Zaporozhia? This time with nuclear consequences? Why are we doing this?
Why are we tempting nuclear annihilation by flooding Ukraine with advanced weapons and sabotaging negotiations at every turn? We've been told by people like senator Dick Durbin that Ukraine is literally in a battle for freedom and democracy itself. And therefore, anyone who opposes military aid to Ukraine opposes the very defensive democracy, according to this logic. So where's the democracy in Volodymyr Zelensky's decision to ban opposition parties, to criminalize the media outlets his legitimate political opponents to jail his top political rival and his deputies, to raid Orthodox churches and jail clergymen. Where is the democracy in the Ukrainian government's imprisonment of Gonzalo Lyra, an American citizen simply for challenging the official narrative of Ukraine's war.
And where is the democracy in Zelensky's recent decision to suspend elections in 2024 on the grounds that martial law has been declared? The answer is that Ukrainian democracy is harder to find these days than that country's Commander in Chief, Valerie Zaluzhny. Senator Lindsey Graham has offered a much more grim or on the mark rationale for supplying Ukraine with 1,000,000,000 in weapons. As the senator boasted during a recent visit with Zelensky in Kiev, the Russians are dying. It's the best money we've ever spent.
I repeat, the Russians are dying. It's the best money we've ever spent. And Graham has also said that Americans are ready to fight this war down to the last Ukrainian. While official casualty numbers are strictly classified, we must worry that Ukraine is well on its way to fulfilling the senator's ghoulish fantasies. As a Ukrainian soldier complained this month to Vice News, we don't know what Zelensky's plans are, but, quote, it looks like the extermination of its own population, like of the combat ready and working age population.
That's it. Indeed, military cemeteries in Ukraine are expanding almost as rapidly as the Northern Virginia McMansions and beachfront estates of executives from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, an assorted Beltway contractors benefiting from the 2nd highest level of military spending since World War II. These are the real winners of the Ukraine proxy war. Not average Ukrainians or Americans or Russians, the winners or Europeans for that matter. The winners are people like secretary of state Tony Blinken, who spent his time between the Obama and Biden the administration's launching a consulting firm called Westec Exec Advisors, which secured lucrative government contracts for intelligence firms in the arms industry.
Blinken's former partners at WestExec include Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, CIA Deputy Director David Cohen, former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, and almost a dozen current and former members of Biden's national security team, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin for his former and possibly future member of board member of Raytheon and an ex partner of Pine Island Capital Investment, which collaborates with WestExec and which Blinken himself has advised. Meanwhile, the current US ambassador to this body, the UN, Linda Thomas Greenfield, is listed as a senior counsel at the Albright Stonebridge Group, a self described commercial diplomacy firm that also finesses government contracts for the intelligence and arms sector and which was founded by Madeleine Albright, infamously known for her comments that the deaths by sanctions of half a 1000000 Iraqi children were worth it. So while military age Ukrainian men are ripped off the streets by military police and sent to the front lines. The financially and politically connected architects of this proxy war are planning to walk through the revolving door to reap unimaginable profits once their time in the Biden administration is over. For them, a negotiated settlement to this territorial dispute means an end to the cash cow of close to 150,000,000,000 in USAID to Ukraine.
So in closing, when the United States, my country, a permanent member of this council has fallen under the control of a bipartisan regime which seeks to perpetuate a proxy war for as long as it takes, in the words of Joe Biden, considers diplomacy synonymous with unilateral course of measures to, quote, turn the ruble to rubble as Biden pledged to do, whose leadership subverts negotiations in order to pursue profit while refusing to properly inform its own citizens what they're paying for and pushes the sons and brothers of its supposed Ukrainian partners out onto a killing field in order to bludgeon a geopolitical rival when both Zelensky and members of US Congress are calling for preemptive strikes on Russia, which have nothing to do with Article 51 of the UN Charter, this council must take action to enforce that charter. That charter is clear that the Security Council must use its authority to guarantee a specific settlement of dispute particularly when it threatens international security that should not only apply to Russia and Ukraine. This council has an obligation to strictly monitor and restrain the US an illegal military formation known as NATO. Thank you.
@MyLordBebo - Lord Bebo
🚨MUST WATCH: “A US president can play a very important role, by reassuring Russia that we're not gonna consider them an enemy anymore and that we wanna be friends.” -> RFK breaks down the Ukraine war and explains how JFK directly talked to Chrushev, preventing WW3 many times! https://t.co/MeIk2xomY5
Video Transcript AI Summary
The war in Ukraine stems from a long history of provocation by the West towards Russia, particularly since NATO's eastward expansion after the Cold War. Promises made to Russia about NATO not moving east were broken, leading to heightened tensions. Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was seen as a response to perceived threats, including the potential inclusion of Ukraine in NATO. The U.S. has engaged in a proxy war, aiming for regime change in Russia rather than seeking peace. The conflict has resulted in significant casualties on both sides, and a military solution seems unlikely. Dialogue and diplomacy are essential to resolving the situation, and there is a need for improved relations with Russia to avoid further escalation, including the risk of nuclear war. Communication between leaders is crucial to address global threats like AI and biological weapons collaboratively.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That's the time we really need to do that.
Speaker 1: Well, if we can apply that style of empathy, style of curiosity to the current war in Ukraine, what is your understanding of why Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022?
Speaker 0: Vladimir Putin could have avoided the war in the Ukraine. His invasion was illegal. It was unnecessary, and it was brutal. But I think it's important for us to move beyond these kind of comic book depictions of a, you know, of this insane, avaricious Russian leader who wants to, you know, restore the the Soviet empire. And that that's why and it was I and it made an unvoked, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.
He was provoked, and we were provoking him, and we were provoking him for for since 1997. And it's not just me that's saying that. I mean, when when and I and before Russia before Putin never came in, We were provoking Russia Russians in this way unnecessarily. And to go back that time in 1992 when the Russians moved out of when the Soviet Union was collapsing, the Russians moved out of East Germany, and they did that, which was a huge concession. And they had 400,000 troops in East Germany at that time, and they were facing NATO troops on the other side of the wall.
Ogorbachev made this huge concession where he said to George Bush, I'm gonna move all of our troops out, and you can then reunify Germany under NATO, which was a hostile army to the to the so it was created to, you know, with hostile intent toward the Soviet Union. And he said, you can take Germany, but I want your promise that you will not move NATO to the east. And James Baker, who was his secretary of state, famously said, I will not move NATO. We will not move NATO 1 inch to the east. So then, 5 years later in 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was kind of the father of the neocons, who was a democrat at that time, served in the in the, Carter administration, he said he published a paper, a blueprint for moving NATO right up to the Russian border, a 1000 miles to the east, and and taking over 14 nations.
And at that time, George Kennan, who was the kind of the deity of American dip diplomats, he was probably arguably arguably the most important diplomat in American history. He was the architect of the containment policy during World War 2, and he said, this is insane, and it's unnecessary. And if you do this, it's gonna provoke the Soviet, the I mean, the Russians to a violent response, and we should be making friends with the Russians. They lost the Cold War. We should be treating them the way that we treated the our adversaries after World War 2, like, with a martial plan to try to help them incorporate into Europe and to be part of the the brotherhood of, you know, of man and of western nations.
We shouldn't continue to be treating them as an enemy and particularly surrounding them at their borders. William Perry, who was then the secretary of of, defense under Bill Clinton threatened to resign. He was so upset by this plan to move NATO to the east. And William Burns, who was then the US ambassador to the Soviet Union, who's now, at this moment, the head of the CIA, said at that time the same thing. If you do this, it is going to provoke the Russians toward a military response.
And the the we we we moved it. We moved all around Russia. We moved to 14 nations, a 1000 miles to the east, and we put Aegis missile systems in 2 nations in Romania and Poland. So we did what, you know, what the Russians had done to us in 1962 that had provoked would have provoked the invasion of Cuba. We put those missile systems back there, and then we'd walk away unilaterally, walk away from the 2, nuclear and missile treaties, the intermediate nuclear and missile treaties that we had with Soviet with Russia.
And when neither of us would put, those missile systems on the borders, we walk away from that, and we put Aegis missile systems, which are nuclear capable. They can carry the Tomahawk missiles, which have nuclear warheads. So the last, country that they didn't take was the Ukraine, and the Russians said and and, in fact, Bill Perry said this or or William Burns said it, who's now the head of the CIA. It is a red line. If we go into if we bring NATO into Ukraine, that is a red line for the Russians.
They cannot live with it. They cannot live with it. Russia has been invaded 3 times through the Ukraine. The last time it was invaded, we killed it or the Germans killed 1 out of every 7 Russians. They destroyed my uncle described what happened to Russia, in his famous American University speech in in in 1963, 60 years ago this month or he's or last month, 60 years ago in June, June 10, 1963, he told that speech was telling American people, put yourself in the shoes of the Russians.
We need to do that if we're gonna if we're gonna make peace. And he said, all of us have been taught, you know, that we won the war, but we didn't win the war. The Russians if anybody won the war against Hitler, it was the Russians. Their country was destroyed. They they all of their city and he said, imagine if all of the cities on the East Coast of Chicago were reduced to rubble, and all of the fields burns, all of the forest burns.
That's what happened to Russia. That's what they gave so that we could get rid of Adolf Hitler. And he had them put themselves in their position. And, you know, today, there's none of that happening. We have refused repeatedly to, to talk to the Russians.
We've broken up. There's 2 treaties, the Minsk agreements, which the Russians were willing to sign, and they said we will stay at the Russians didn't want the Ukraine. They showed that when they when the Donbas region voted 90 to 10 to leave and go to Russia. Putin said no. We we want Ukraine to stay intact, but we want you to sign a Minsk Accords to to you know, they the Russians were were very worried because of the US involvement in the coup in Ukraine in 2014 and then the oppression and the and the, you know, and the killing of 14,000 ethnic Russians.
And Russia hasn't had the same re the same way that if Mexico put Aegis missile systems from China or Russia on our border and and killed 14,000, expats American, we would go in there. Oh, he does have a national security interest in the Ukraine. He has an interest in protecting the Russian speaking people of the Ukraine, the ethnic Russians, and the Minsk Accords did that. It left Ukraine as part of Russia. It left them as a semiautonomous region that could and, continue to use their own language, which is essentially banned by the coup, by the government we put in in 2014.
And, and we wouldn't we we sabotage that agreement. And and in we now know in April of 2022, Zelensky and, Putin had inked a deal already to another peace agreement and that the United States sent Boris Johnson, the neocons in the White House, sent Boris Johnson over to the Ukraine to sabotage that agreement. So what do I think? I think this is a proxy war. I think this is a, you know, this is a war that the Neo cons in the White House wanted.
They've said for 2 decades, they wanted this war, and that they wanted to use Ukraine as a pawn in a proxy war between, United States and Russia, the same as we used Afghanistan. And they in fact, they say it. This is the model. Let's use the Afghanistan model. That was said again and again And to to to get the Russians to overextend their troops and then fight them using local, fighters and US weapons.
And when president Biden was asked, why are we in the Ukraine? He was honest. He says to depose Vladimir Putin, regime change for Vladimir Putin. And when his defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, in April 2022 was asked, you know, why are we there? He said, to degrade the Russians' capacity to fight anywhere.
You know, to exhaust the Russian army and degrade its capacity to fight elsewhere in the world. That's not a humanitarian mission. That's not what we were told. We were we were told this was an unprovoked invasion, but and that we're there to bring a humanitarian relief to the Ukrainians, but that is the opposite. That is a war of attrition that is designed to chew up, to turn this little nation into an avatar of death for the flower of Ukrainian youth in order to advance a geopolitical ambition of certain people within the White House.
And I, you know, I think that's wrong. We should be talking to the Russians the way that, you know, Nixon talked to Brezhnev, the way that Bush talked to Gorbachev, the way that my uncle talked to Khrushchev. We need to be talking with the Russians. We should and and and negotiating, and we need to be looking about how do we end this and preserve peace in Europe.
Speaker 1: Would you, as president, sit down and have a conversation with Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky separately and together to negotiate
Speaker 0: peace? Absolutely.
Speaker 1: What about Vladimir Putin? He's been in power since 2000. So as the old adage goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts. Absolutely. Do you think he has been corrupted by being in power for so long?
If you think of the man, if you look at his mind.
Speaker 0: Listen. I don't know exactly, I can't say because I just I don't know enough about him or about you know, I my the evidence that I've seen is that he is homicidal. He kills his enemies or poisons them. And, you know, the reaction I've seen to that to hit those accusations from him have have not been to deny that, but to kind of laugh it off. I think he's a dangerous man and that, of course, you know, there's probably corruption in his regime.
But having said that, it's not our business to change the Russian government. And anybody who thinks it's a good idea to do regime change in Russia, which has more nuclear weapons than we do, is, I think, irresponsible. And, you know, Vladimir Putin himself has said, you know, we will not live in a world without Russia. And it was clear when he said that that he was talking about himself. And, and he has his hand on a button that could bring, you know, Armageddon to the entire planet.
So why are we messing with this? It's not our job to change that regime, and and we should be making friends with the Russians. We shouldn't be treating them as an enemy. Now we've pushed them into the camp with China. That's not a good thing for our country.
And by the way, you know, what we're doing now does not appear to be weakening Putin at all. Putin now you know, if you believe the the polls that are coming out of Russia, they show him you know, the most recent polls that I've seen, show him with that 89% popularity that people in Russia support the war in Ukraine, and that, and they support him as an individual. So, and I understand there's problems with polling, and, you know, you don't know what to believe. But but the polls consistently show that. And, and I you know, it's not America's business to be the policeman of the world and to be changing regimes in the world.
That's illegal. We're not we shouldn't be breaking international laws. You know, we should actually be looking for ways to improve relationships with Russia, not to, you know, not to destroy Russia, not to destroy and not to choose its leadership for them. That's up to the Russian people, not us.
Speaker 1: So step 1 is to sit down and empathize with the leaders of both nations to understand their history, their concerns, their hopes. Just to open the door for conversation so they're not back to the corner.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I think the US can play a really important role, and a US president can play a really important role by reassuring the Russians that we're not gonna consider them an enemy anymore, that we wanna be friends. And it doesn't mean that you have to let down your guard completely the way that you do it, which was the way president Kennedy did that it is. You do it one step at a time. You take baby steps.
We do a unilateral move to reduce our, you know, our our hostility and aggression and see if the Russians reciprocate. And, and that's the way that we should be doing it, and, you know, we should be easing our way into a positive relationship with Russia. We have a lot in common with Russia, and we should be friends with Russia and with the Russian people. And, you know, apparently, there's been 350,000 Ukrainians who have died at least in this war, And, and there's probably been, 60 or 80,000 Russians, and that should not give us any joy. It should not give us any you know, I saw Lindsey Graham on TV saying, you know, anything we can something to the extent that anything we can do to kill Russians is a good use of our money.
That it is not. You know, those are those are somebody's children. They're you know, we should have compassion for them. This war is an unnecessary war. We should settle it through negotiation, through diplomacy, through statecraft, and not through weapons.
Speaker 1: Do you think this war can come to an end purely through military operations?
Speaker 0: No. I mean, I don't think there's any way in the world that the Ukrainians can beat the Russians. I don't think there's any appetite in Europe. I think Europe is now, you know, in having severe problems in Germany, Italy, France. You're seeing these riots.
There's internal problems in those countries. There is no appetite in, in, in Europe for sending men to die in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians do not have anybody left. The Ukrainians are using press gangs to, to, you know, to fill the ranks of their armies. Men military age men are trying as hard as they can to get out of the Ukraine right now to avoid going to the front. The front you know, is is the Russians apparently have been killing Ukrainians at 7 to 1 ratio.
My son fought over there, and he told me it's an art you know, artillery he had. He had firefights with the Russians mainly at night, but he said most of the battles were artillery wars during the day, and the the Russians now out, outgun the NATO forces 10 to 1 in artillery. Oh, they're killing, at a horrendous rate now. You know, my interpretation of what's happened so far is that the Putin actually went in early on with a small force because he expected to meet somebody on the other end of the negotiating table there once he went in. And, and that when that didn't happen, they did not have a large enough force to be able to mount an offensive.
And so they've been building up that force up till now, and they now have that force. And even against this small original force, the Ukrainians have been, hope helpless. All of their offenses have died. They've now killed, you know, the head of the Ukrainian, special forces, which was the probably, arguably, by many accounts, the best, elite military unit in all of Europe. The the commandant, the commander of of the, that special forces group, gave a a speech about, 4 months ago saying that 86% of his men are dead or wounded, and Will cannot return to the front.
He cannot rebuild that force. The, and, you know, the the the troops that are now headed, that are now filling the gaps of all those 350,000 men who have been lost are, are scantily trained, and they're arriving green at the front. Many of them do not wanna be there. Many of them are giving up and going over the Russian side. We've seen this again and again again, including platoon size groups that are defecting to the Russians.
And, I don't think it's possible. And and anybody you know, I saw I I of course, I've studied World War 2 history exhaustively, but I saw a, there's a new I think it's a Netflix series of documentaries that I highly recommend to people. They're it's they're colorized versions of the black and white Mhmm. Films from the battles of World War 2, but it's all the battles of World War 2. So I watched Stalingrad the other night, and, you know, the the willingness of the Russians to, to fight on against any kind of allies and to make huge sacrifices of Russians.
The Russians themselves who are making the sacrifice with their lives, The willingness of them to do that for their motherland is almost inexhaustible. It is incomprehensible to think that the, that Ukraine can can beat Russia in a war. It would be like Mexico beating the United States. It it's just it's impossible to think that it can happen, and, you know, Russia has has deployed a tiny, tiny fraction of its military so far. And, you know, now it has China with its mass production capacity supporting its war effort.
It's just it's a it's a hopeless situation, and we've been lied to. You know, we're the the press in our country and our government are just are just, you know, promoting this lie that the Ukrainians are about to win and that everything's going great and that Putin's on the run, and there's all this wishful thinking because of the the Wagner Group, you know, the the Progression. And the Wagner Group that this was an internal coup, and it showed dissent and weakness of Putin, and none of that is true. I was a that that insurgency, which wasn't even an insurgency. He only got 4,000 of his of his men to follow him out of 20,000, and they were quickly stopped.
And nobody in the Russian military, the oligarchy, the political system, nobody supported it. You know? And but we're being told, oh, yeah. It's the beginning of the end for blue Putin. He's weakened.
He's wounded. He's on his way out, and all of these things are just lies that we are being fed.
Speaker 1: So push back on a small aspect of this that you kind of implied. So I've traveled to Ukraine. And one thing that I should say similar to the battle of Stalingrad, it is just not it is not only the Russians that fight to the end. I think Ukrainians are very Yeah. To fight to the end.
And the morale there is quite high. I've talked to nobody. This was a year ago in August with her son. Everybody was proud to fight and die for their country, and there's some aspect where this war unified the people to get gave them a reason and an understanding that this is what it means to be Ukrainian, and I will fight to the death to defend Islam.
Speaker 0: I, you know, I would agree with that, and I I should've said that myself at the beginning. You know, that's one of the reason my son went over there to fight because the you know, he was inspired by the valor of the Ukrainian people and the, you know, this extraordinary willingness of them. And I think Putin thought it would be much easier to sweep into Ukraine, and he found, you know, a stone wall of, of Ukrainians whether ready to put their their lives and their bodies online. But that, to me, makes the the whole episode even more tragic is that, you know, I don't believe I I, you know, I I think that the US role in this, has been, has you know, that there there were there were many opportunities to settle this war, and the Ukrainians wanted to settle. Volodymyr Zelenskyy when he ran in 2019.
Here's a guy who's a a comedian. He's a he's an actor. He had no political experience, and yet he won this election with 70% of the vote. Why? He won on a peace platform.
Anyone promising to sign the Minsk Accords, and yet something happened when he got in there that made him suddenly pivot. And, you know, I think it's a good guess what happened. I think he was you know, he came under threat by ultranationalist within his own administration, and the insistence of neocons like Victoria Nuland in the White House that, you know, we we don't want peace with Putin. We want a war.
Speaker 1: Do you worry about nuclear war?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I worry about it. It's,
Speaker 1: it seems like a silly question, but it's not. It's a serious question.
Speaker 0: Well, the reason it's not, you know, the reason it it, might it's not. It's just because, people seem to be in this kind of dream state about that it'll never happen. And yet, you know, we're, it it can happen very easily, and it can happen at any time. And, you know, if we push the Russians too far, you know, I I don't doubt that Putin, if he felt like his regime was in you know, or his nation was in danger, that the United States was gonna be able to place, you know, a a quizzling on, you know, in into the Kremlin, that he would use nuclear, you know, torpedoes. And, you know, these, these strategic weapons that they have, and that could be the be it.
Once you do that, nobody controls the trajectory. By the way, you know, I have I have very strong memories of the, Cuban Missile Crisis. And out of those 13 days, when we came closer to nuclear war, you know, and particularly, I think it was when the u two got shot down over, Cuba that you know? And nobody in this there's a lot of people in Washington DC who, at that point, thought that they very may well, may wake up dead. That the world may end at night.
30,000,000 Americans killed, a 130,000,000 Russians. This is what our military brass wanted. They saw a war with Russia, nuclear exchange with Russia as not only inevitable, but also desirable because they wanted to do it now. We still had a a superiority.
Speaker 1: Can you actually go through the feelings you've had about the Cuban Missile Crisis? Like, what what are your memories of it? What what are some interest
Speaker 0: I know. In the middle of I was going to school in Washington, DC to, to sit well, or to, Our Lady of Victory, which is, in Washington, DC. So we were I lived in Virginia across the Potomac, and we would cross the bridge every day into DC. And during the crisis, US Marshals came to my house to take us, I think, around day 8. My father was spending the night at the White House.
He wasn't coming home. He was staying with the ex comm committee and sleeping there, and they were up, you know, 24 hours a day. They were debating and trying to figure out what was happening. And, but we had US Marshals come to our house to take us down. They were gonna take us down to White Silver Springs in, in Southern Virginia in the in the Blue Ridge Mountains where where there was a, there was an underground city, essentially, a bunker that was like a city, and apparently, it had McDonald's in it and a lot of other you know, it had it was a full city for the US government and their families.
US Marshals came to our house to take us down there, and I was very excited about doing that. And this was at a time, you know, when we were doing the drills. We were doing the ducking cover drills, once a week at our school where they would tell you if they that, you know, when the alarms go off, then you you put your head onto the table. You take the remove the sharps from your desk, put them inside your desk, you put your head onto the table, and you wait. And the initial blast will take the windows out of the school, and then we all stand up and and file in an orderly fashion into the basement where we're gonna be for the next 6 or 8 months or whatever.
But in the basement where, you know, we we went occasionally in those corridors, we're lined with, freeze dried food can off to the from floor to ceiling. So people were you know, we were all preparing for this, and it was, you know, Bob McNamara, who is my who is a friend of mine and, you know, is my father. One of my father's close friend is secretary of defense. He later called it mass psychosis, and my father deeply regretted participating in the bomb shelter program because he said it it was part of a a, you know, a psychological psyop trick to treat them to teach Americans that nuclear war was acceptable, that it was survivable. And my father anyway, when the when the marshals came to our house to take me and my brother Joe away, and we we were the ones who are home at that time, My father called, and he talked to us on the phone.
And he said, I don't want you going down there because, because if you disappear from school, people are gonna panic. And I need you to be a good soldier and go to school. Now what and and he said something to me during that period, which was that if a nuclear were to happen, it would be better to be among the dead than the living, which I did not believe. Okay. I mean, I I had already prepared myself for the, you know, for the for the dystopian future, and I knew I could I spent every day in the woods.
I knew that I could survive by catching crawfish and, you know, cooking mud puppies and all to whatever I had to do. But I felt like, okay. I can I can handle this? And I really wanted to see the setup down in, you know, this underground city. But, anyway, that was, you know, part of it for, me.
My father was away and, you know, the last days of it. My father, got this idea because Khrushchev had sent 2 letters. He sent one letter that was conciliatory, and then he sent a letter that after his joint chiefs and the warmongers around him saw that letter, and they disapproved of it. They sent another letter that was extremely belligerent. And my father had the idea.
Let's just pretend we didn't get the second letter and reply to the first one. And then he went down to Dobrinin and who was he met Dobrinin in the justice department. And Dobrin was the Soviet ambassador. And they, you know, they proposed this settlement, which was a secret settlement where Khrushchev would withdraw the missiles from Cuba. Khrushchev had put the missiles in Cuba because we had put missiles, you know, nuclear missiles in in Turkey and Italy.
And my uncle's secret deal was that if he if Khrushchev removed the missiles from Cuba within 6 months, he would get rid of the Jupiter missiles in Turkey. But if Khrushchev told anybody about the deal, it was off. Mhmm. So if if news got out about that secret deal, it was off. That was the actual deal, And Khrushchev complied with it, and then my uncle complied with it.
Speaker 1: How much of that part of human history turned on the decisions of 1 person?
Speaker 0: I think that's one of the you know, because that, of course, is the perennial question. Right? What is history kind of on a on a automatic pilot? And, you know, human decisions, decisions leaders really only have, you know, marginal or incremental bearing on what is gonna happen anyway. But I think that is the and the historians argue about that all the time.
I think that that is a really good example of a play of a a place in human history that, that literally the world could have ended if we had a different leader in the White House. And the reason for that is that there were, as I recall, 64 gun emplacements, you know, missile missile emplacements. Each one of those missile emplacements had a crew of about a 100 men, and they were Soviets. So, they were and they we didn't know whether we we had a couple of questions that my uncle asked Alan or asked the CIA, and he asked Dulles was already gone, but he asked the CIA and he asked, his military brass because they all wanted to go in. Everybody wanted to go in.
And my uncle said, my uncle asked to see the aerial photos, and he examined those personally. And that's why it's important to have a leader in the White House who could push back on on their bureaucracies. He, and then he asked them, you know, are those who's manning those missile sites? Who and are they Russians? And if they're Russians and we bomb them, are they isn't it gonna force Khrushchev to then go into Berlin?
And that would be the beginning of a cascade effect that would, you know, highly likely to end a nuclear confrontation. And the the, the military said to my uncle, oh, we don't think you'll have the, you know, we don't think you'll have the, the guts to do that. Mhmm. So he went my uncle was like, that's what you're betting on? And, you know, they all wanted him to go in.
They wanted him to bomb the sites and then invade Cuba. Mhmm. And he said if we bomb those sites, we're gonna be killing Russians, and it's gonna force it's gonna provoke Russia into some response, and the obvious response is for them to go into Berlin. Oh, the but the thing that we didn't know then, we didn't find out until, I think, you know, there was a it was like a 30 year anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Havana. And what we learned then was that from the Russians who came to that event.
It was like a symposium where everybody on both sides talked about it, and we learned a lot of stuff and and never nobody knew before. One of the insane things, the most insane thing that we learned was that the the weapons were already the the nuclear warheads were already in place. They were ready to fire, and that the authorization to fire was made, was delegated to each of the gun crew commanders. So there were 60 people who had all had authorization to fire if they felt themselves under attack. So you have to believe them.
At least one of them would have launched, and that would have been the beginning of the end. And, you know, if they if anybody had launched, you know, we knew what would happen. My uncle knew what would happen because he asked again and again what's gonna happen? And they said, 30,000,000 Americans will be killed, but we will kill a 130,000,000 Russians, so we will win. And that was a victory for them.
And my uncle said later said he told he told Arthur Schlesinger and Kenny O'Donnell. He said, those guys, he called them the salad brass, the guys with all of this stuff on their chest. And he said he said, those guys, they don't care because they know that if it happens, that they're gonna be in the charge of everything. They're the ones who are gonna be running the world after that.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: So for them, you know, it was it was an incentive to to kill a 130,000,000 Russians and 30,000,000 Americans. But my uncle, he has this correspondence with Khrushchev. They were secretly corresponding with each other, and that is what saved the world is that they had both of them had been men of war. You know, Eisenhower famously said it will it will not be a man of war. It will not be a soldier who starts World War 3 because the guy who's actually seen it knows how bad it is.
And my uncle, you know, had been in the heat of of the South Pacific. His boat had been cut in 2 by a Japanese destroyer. His many of it 3 of his crewmen had been killed. 1 of them badly burned. He he pulled that guy with a lanyard in his teeth 6 miles to a island in the middle of the night, and then they hid out there for 10 days.
You know? And, and, you know, he came back. Like I said, he was the only, president of the United States that earned the purple heart. Meanwhile, Khrushchev had been at Stalingrad, which was the worst place to be on the planet, you know, probably in the 20th century, other than, you know, in Auschwitz or one of the death camps. It was, you know, it was it was the most ferocious, horrific war with people starving, people, you know, committing cannibalism, you know, eating the dogs, the cats, eating their shoe leather, or easing to death by the 1,000, etcetera.
Khrushchev did not want the last thing he wanted was a war, and the last thing my uncle wanted was a war. And they but the the CIA did not know anything about Khrushchev. And the reason for that is the there was a mole at Langley so that every time the CIA got a spy in the Kremlin, he would immediately be killed. So they had no eyes in the Kremlin. You know, there were literally hundreds of Russia of Russian spies who had who were who had defected the United States and were in the Kremlin, who were killed during that period.
They had no idea anything about Khrushchev, about how he saw the world, and they saw the Kremlin itself as a monolith, you know, that it is, this kind of, you know, the same way that we look at Putin today that, know, it's all they they have this ambition of world conquest, and that's it's driving them, and there's nothing else they think about. They're absolutely single-minded about it. But, actually, there was a big division between Khrushchev and, and his joint chiefs and his intelligence apparatus, and they and they both at one point discovered they were both in the same situation. They were surrounded by spies and military now who were intent on going to war, and they were the 2 guys resisting it. So when my uncle my uncle had this idea of, you know, being the peace president from the beginning, he told Ben Bradley, his one of his best friends who, you know, was run the publisher of the Washington Post or the editor in chief at that time.
He said, Ben Bradley asked him, what is what do you want on your gravestone? And my uncle said, he kept the peace. He said, the principal job of the president of the United States is to keep the country out of war. And, and so when he first became president, he he anxiously agreed to meet Khrushchev in Geneva to do a summit. And by the way, Eisenhower wanted to do the same thing.
Eisenhower wanted peace, but his and he was gonna meet in Vienna. But that peace summit was blown up. He was gonna try to do, you know, he was gonna try to end the Cold War. Eisenhower was in the last year of his of his in May of 1960, But that was torpedoed by the CIA during the u two crash. You know, they sent a u two over the over the Soviet Union, and it got shot down.
And then they told and then Alan Dulles told Eisenhower to deny that we had a program. They didn't know that the Russians had captured Gary Francis Powers. And so when and and that blew up the peace talks between Eisenhower and Khrushchev. And so, you know, they and the the the there was a lot of tension. My uncle wanted to break that tension.
He agreed to meet with, with Khrushchev in Vienna early on in his term. He went over there, and Khrushchev snubbed him. Khrushchev, lectured him imperiously about the, you know, the the terror of American imperialism and and rebuff any you know, they did agree not to go into Laos. They made an agreement that kept United States to keep my uncle from sending troops to Laos, but, it's a it had been a a disaster, Vienna. So then we had a spy that used to come to our house all the time.
I I cut Georgi Bolshukoy. He was this Russian spy. My my parents had met at the embassy. They had gone to a party or reception at Russian embassy, and he had approached them. And they knew he was a he was a GRU agent and KGB.
He was both oh, he used to come to our house. They really liked him. He was very attractive. He was always laughing and joking. He would do rope climbing contests with my father.
He would do push up contests with my father. He was, he could do the Russian dancing, the Cossack dancing, and he would do that for us and teach us that. And he would and we knew he was a spy too. And this was at the time of, you know, the James Bond films were first coming out, so it was really exciting for us to have a actual Russian spy in our house. The state department was horrified by it.
Yeah. But, but, anyway, when Khrushchev after Vienna and after, the, you know, the bay pigs, Khrushchev had second thoughts. And he sent this long letter to my uncle, and he didn't wanna go through his his state department or his embassy. He wanted to enrun them, but and he was friends with Polshkoy. So he gave Georgi the the letter, and Georgi brought it and handed it to Pierre Salinger, folded in the New York Times.
And he gave it to my uncle. And it was this beautiful letter, which he said, you know, he my uncle had talked to him about the children who were played. You know, we played 29 grandchildren who were playing in his yard, and he's saying, what is our moral basis for making a decision that could kill these children so they'll never write a poem? They'll never participate in election. They'll never run for office.
How can we make a how can we can we morally make a decision that is going to eliminate life for these beautiful kids. And, he has said that to to Khrushchev, and Khrushchev wrote them this letter back saying that he was now sitting as this dacha on the Black Sea and, that he was thinking about what my uncle Jack had said to him at Vienna, and he regretted very deeply not having taken the olive leaf that Jack had offered him. And then he said, you know, it occurs to me now that we're all on an ark and that there is not another one and that the entire fate of the planet and all of its creatures and all of the children are dependent on the decisions we make. And you and I have a moral obligation to go forward with each other as friends. And immediately after that, this was you know, they he said that right after the Berlin crisis in 1962.
General Curtis LeMay, tried to, had tried to provoke a war with a an incident at Checkpoint Charlie, which was the the the entrance the entrance and exit through the Berlin Wall in Berlin. And the Russian tanks has come to the wall. The US tanks had come to the wall, and there was a standoff. And my uncle had had, sent a message to Khrushchev then through Dobrin and saying, my back is at the wall. I cannot I have no place to back to please back off, and then we will back off.
And Khrushchev took his word, packed his tanks off first, and then my uncle ordered LeMay to back back. He had LeMay had mounted bulldozer plows on the on the front of the tanks to to plow down the Berlin Wall. Mhmm. And that and the Russians had come. So it was just you know, it was the it was the his generals trying to provoke a war.
And, but they started talking to each other. And then when he after he wrote that letter, they agreed that they would install a hotline so they could talk to each other, and they wouldn't have to go through intermediaries. Mhmm. And so at at Jack's house on the Cape, there was a red phone that we knew if we picked it up, would answer.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: And there was another one in the White House.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And but they knew it was important to talk to each other. You know? And you just wish that we had that kind of leadership today. I can, I you know, that that just understands our job? Look.
I know you know a lot about AI. Right? And you know how dangerous it is potentially to humanity and what opportunities it also, you know, offers. But it could kill us all. I mean, Elon said, first, it's gonna steal our job, then it's gonna kill us.
Right? Yeah. And it's it's probably not hyperbole. It's actually you know, if it follows the laws of biological evolution, which are just the laws of mathematics, that's probably a good endpoint for it, you know, a a potential endpoint. So, we we need it's gonna happen, but we need to make sure it's regulated, and it's regulated properly for safety in every country.
And and that includes Russia and China and Iran. Right now, we we should be putting all the weapons of war aside and sitting down with those guys and say, how are we doing? How are we gonna do this? There's much more important things to do. We're gonna this stuff is gonna kill us if we don't figure out how to regulate it.
And and leadership needs to look down the road at what what is the real risk here. And the real risk is that, you know, AI will will, you know, enslave us for one thing and, you know, and and then destroy us and do all this other stuff. And how about biological weapons? We're now all working on these biological weapons, and we're doing biological weapons from for Ebola and, and, you know, dengue fever and, you know, all of these other bad, things, and we're making ethnic bioweapons, bioweapons that can only heal Russians, bioweapons that that the Chinese are making that, you know, are are can kill people who don't who don't have Chinese genes. So all of this is now within reach.
We're actively doing it, and we need to stop it. And we can easily a a biological weapons treaty is the easiest thing in the world to do. We can verify it. We can enforce it, and everybody wants to agree to it. It only insane people do not wanna wanna continue this kind of research.
There's no reason to do it. So there are these existential threats to all of humanity now out there, like AI and biological biological weapons. We need to star stop fighting each other, start competing on economic game fields, playing fields instead of military playing fields, which will be good for all of humanity, and that we need to sit down with each other and negotiate reasonable treaties on how we regulate AI and and biological weapons. And nobody's talking about this in this political race right now. Nobody's talking about it in the government.
They get fixated on these little wars and, you know, and, these comic book depictions of good versus evil and, you know, and we all go, you know, and and go off to and give them the weapons and enrich, you know, the military and gush a shuttle complex, but we're we're on the road to perdition if we don't end this.
Speaker 1: And some of this requires to have this kind of phone that connects Khrushchev and John f Kennedy that cuts through all the bureaucracy Yeah. To have this communication between heads of state. And in the in the case of AI, perhaps heads of, tech companies, we can just pick up the phone and have a conversation. Because a lot of it, a lot of the existential threats of artificial intelligence, perhaps even bioweapons, is unintentional. It's not even, strategic and actionable effects.
So you have to be transparent and honest about especially with AI, the people who might not know what what's the worst that's going to happen once you release it out into the wild. And you have to have an honest kind of communication about how to do it so that companies are not terrified of regulation, overreach of regulation. And then, government is not terrified of tech companies of, manipulating them in some direct or indirect ways. So, like, there's a trust that builds versus a distrust. That that seems to so, basically, that old phone where Khrushchev can call John f Kennedy is needed.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson just dropped an 80-minute interview with Democrat presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr: "Ukraine, bio-labs, and who killed President Kennedy." https://t.co/IbzdJ8Gv5T
Video Transcript AI Summary
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discussed his lack of Secret Service protection despite receiving numerous threats. He applied for protection but was denied, which he believes reflects political maneuvering by the DNC. He expressed concern over the ongoing war in Ukraine, emphasizing the complex historical context and U.S. involvement. Kennedy criticized the portrayal of Russia and the motivations behind the conflict, arguing that the U.S. has provoked Russia through NATO expansion. He also highlighted the humanitarian crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, noting that many migrants come from various countries, not just Latin America. He called for a more compassionate approach to immigration and criticized the exploitation of migrants. Kennedy concluded by sharing his commitment to advocating for the marginalized and addressing the economic struggles faced by many Americans today.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We decided to do the only interview with Robert f Kennedy junior conducted in the last 15 years that doesn't mention vaccines. But if you're interested in why we have found ourselves at war with Russia or who killed his uncle, president Kennedy, and why, it's worth watching. Bobby Kennedy Junior, thank you for joining us. So I noticed when you showed up, you've been on the road for weeks, you had no secret service with you, which is a little weird given your well, that your father was murdered while running for president as you now are. Why wouldn't you have secret service protection?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I did do a tweet on that that got, 30,000,000 views when when we got rejected. I we applied in May for secret service protection. There are actually secret service protection was only allocated to the nominees of the parties prior to 1968. When my father was killed, they changed the law immediately. And all of the people who were running against him, including, including George Wallace immediately got Secret Service protection.
So the law says that you're entitled to secret service protection automatically a 100 days out. But the president also has discretion to give secret service protection to any candidate any candidate for any reason. And there are criteria, which is that you have to have 15% of, polling results for a limited period of time. But he even can overrule that. For example, president Obama was given secret service protection 441 days out or 5 no.
551 days out even though he had only, I think, 5% support at that time. My uncle Teddy was given the Secret Service protection 450 days out, even though he had not even declared for his presidency. And so Carter he and Carter hated each other. Carter was president Carter was, you know, the president of his own party, and Teddy had been enormously critical of him. And, personally, they had a they had a very personal antipathy for one another.
Teddy ended up running against them. But when he was moving into that decision to run, Carter in a very classy move, gave him Secret Service protection, we applied for it. I get a lot of threats, a lot of death threats, and I get, you know, a lot of people who are for example, about 2 weeks ago, a mentally ill person made it to the second story of my house. And that is a very, very common occurrence.
Speaker 0: Inside your house?
Speaker 1: Inside my house before, you know, somebody who was working there, stopped them and then called the police. And we have a we gave the Secret Service a 67 in fact, Gavin De Becker, who you've had on this show Yeah. Who's the premier runs the premier security service in the world, put together a 67 page report, which included 28 pages of, you know, of all the threats of you know, typical threats against me and, and other indicia that I should have Secret Service protection. And we I assume the president would give it to me because, you know, it just seems like bad judgment not to give it to me. You know?
If you go even on my Twitter feed, probably one out of, I don't know, every 30 or 40 comments says, oh, you're gonna get killed or something like that. You know? It It takes notice of the peculiar threats to my family who family members who are in this business. Oh, it's something that, you know, the the average American is aware of.
Speaker 0: And your name is Robert f Kennedy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And the and so it was an odd decision. I got a letter. Gavin actually got the letter because he had been doing and by the way, I wanna say this. The Secret Service themselves were wonderful.
They were very, very encouraging, and they were very helpful at every step along the way. And I I believe, and I can't speak for them, but I believe that their assumption was that they that we're gonna get a safe and service protection. In fact, they told Gavin we're gonna send somebody out there within 10 days to interview Cheryl and Bobby and, to, you know, to tell them, what it's gonna look like because there's a lot of questions about, you know, do I go to the gym? Do I have them you know, all of these questions that I don't know the answers to. And they they come and they have a they have a standard process for informing you.
But then they went dark, And they said, a decision is made very quickly within 14 days is what they told us. And they said, we have 8 details standing by ready to go, so we can do this very quickly. And then they went dark. And for 88 days, we didn't hear from them. And then I got the letter from Mayorkas, Alexander Mayorkas, who's the director of DHS, saying that we've determined that you don't need a safe service protection.
Speaker 0: It it's very obvious, and you confirmed it, that there are threats against your life, against your family. That's known. And so if they deny you protection and they know that, what message are they sending?
Speaker 1: I don't really know what they're they're doing. And by the way, we've looked. And, there's a guy called Jeremy Hammond who's done a really good article, a really thorough article about the past. And he was not able and we were not able to find a single presidential candidate who had requested Herman Cain got it, I think, 500 days out. Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, George Bush and Ronald Reagan got it something 5 or 600 days out when they first ran.
So it's just standard operating procedure. And particularly people who are polling around the aisle, anywhere over 15%, which I have been for 4 or 5 months now, are regarded as, it's been treated as pro form a. And I am the outliner. I'm the single outliner that we could find that that was denied Secret Service.
Speaker 0: Why do you think that is?
Speaker 1: I think the DNC is playing hardball. And let's say this, I think the least malevolent interpretation that you can put on it is that, they know that I'm gonna have to have some kind of security service. And that typically would cost me, you know, to do to do real security service between a 100,200,000 dollars a month because you have to pay the protectors. You have to pay for their transportation.
Speaker 0: Of course. So tell me what to do.
Speaker 1: The cars and, the hotels, the foods, and all of this, and it's very expensive because I'm traveling every day. So I think they, you know, they probably feel like they can bleed me white by, you know, making making sure that I'm not, that I'm not spending that money on advertising or organization, but then I have to raise a lot of money for my own protection. But I don't know. I mean, I'm just speculating about that.
Speaker 0: Does it strike you that the Biden administration pays for personal security for Zelensky, but not for you? No.
Speaker 1: Well, they you know, listen. John Bolton has still got has a secret service detail. Still? Yeah. Still.
He hasn't been in government in years.
Speaker 0: And he didn't do a good
Speaker 1: job in the world. All the president's family, have secret service details. You know, Hunter has a secret service detail when he goes to court every day. He has 4 or 5 cars that are coming with him in a very, very big detail. Oh, and many government officials who are ex government officials what the Secret Service told us and you can go look at Jeremy Hammond's report, which you can find on, I think you just go on the internet and put Jeremy Hammond in RFK Secret Service.
But he shows that literally nobody, no presidential candidate, many, many other people are receiving it. But I and I'm really like an outlier.
Speaker 0: So, I mean, that raises the larger I mean, you're running against Biden. Right? So, obviously, you're not on his Christmas card list anymore, but it does raise the bigger question. Why do people in Washington have this and not just in government, but also in media, have this kind of special loathing for you, this hatred of you?
Speaker 1: I don't know that. I cannot answer that question. I I am I'm kind of I'm shocked even though, you know, I've been, I'd say maligned for many years because the stuff that I was doing with vaccines, the kind of the uniformity of the vitriol against me in the mainstream media and the dishonesty of it that virtually every article contains not just outright not just mischaracterizations, but also just outright lies, things that any fact checker could look up and determine were not true. And they all are doing it, whether it's Vanity Fair or whether it's the Atlantic Monthly or Washington Post, Boston Globe. There's just, there's virtually no exception.
Speaker 0: What do you think your crime is?
Speaker 1: I think part of it is that there's been, and again, I don't know. I can't explain it. Somebody else, I know somebody will explain it in a way at one point where I'll go, ah, that makes sense. But right now, what it seems to me is that there's been this alignment, this political alignment that I think really started with Fox News back, when Roger was running things there where he overtly made it a political network. He aligned it with the Republican party, and he said we're gonna push their agenda.
And up until then, that has been considered a journalistic ethical breach. The networks were supposed to at least pretend neutrality and the newspapers as well. But now I think that business model works so well for Fox. And again, I think MSNBC and CNN adopted the same business model. And then there's been this big consolidation in the media where there really is no independent media.
You have every newspaper in this country, every radio station, every TV station, almost all the billboards and most of the large internet content providers that are now owned by 5 companies. That was illegal under the 1928 Communications Radio Act. Today, it's been that has been what's happened. We've had this big consolidation. And I think the profit models for Wall Street, which now is BlackRock and Vanguard and Safe Street, which own them all and they have to the news divisions have become business models, business profit centers.
And they've aligned themselves. They've figured out that their strategy is to align themselves with the DNC or the RNC. That's the only thing I can that's the best explanation, and it's probably not a very good one. But And you're the where is this deal with uniformity?
Speaker 0: Oh, well but its effect is to ignore stories that are objectively the most important stories. I mean, wherever you fall on those questions, there's no, like, denying that the war in Ukraine is changing the world. It will change history. Most of the stuff is a footnote. That's a that's a book, and yet the coverage of it is, like, not even so for example,
Speaker 1: the president That's much more consequential.
Speaker 0: Well, it's the most consequential, but
Speaker 1: it's coverage of me, which is there's no questioning of these orthodoxies. And when it comes to the Ukraine war, I mean, we're being lied to about it.
Speaker 0: In what way?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, we were lied to from the beginning. You know, we had this comic book depiction that which we see on every war. There's a bad guy who's like, you know, unspeakably evil
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Who's planning world conquest or terrorist attack on, you know, the on America. And we have to be the good guys and go in and stop it. And Ukraine, the background of Ukraine war is much more complex than that. The US has been involved particularly the neocons and the white out. I wouldn't say particularly.
I'd say a group of people that are known as neocons since 2,001 have been talking about putting NATO in Ukraine. Now in and I'll give you some back the background. In 1992, the walls came down and the Soviet Union collapsed. Gorbachev went to Tony Blair and to president Bush, who were, you know, the British the UK and US presidents at that time and said, I'm gonna do something extraordinary that basically is gonna have the rest of Russian history branding me as a traitor to my country. I'm gonna withdraw 400,000 Soviet troops from East Germany, and I'm gonna allow you to reunify Germany under NATO troops.
So you're gonna move NATO troops to a hostile a hostile force into our barracks and our bases. I'm gonna do that. And the only commitment I want from you is that once I allow Germany to reunify to become part of NATO, that you will never move NATO further to the east because we're gonna now release all of these, Soviet states that were part of the Soviet Union. They're gonna become independent states, and we don't want NATO moving into those. And James Baker, who was Secretary of State at that time famously said, we promise that we will not move NATO 1 inch to the east.
So Gorbachev now did that and he's now, you know, despised in Russia. And then in 1996 and 1997, so 5 years later, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was the first kind of the father of the neocon movement, the neocons where the neocons represent in a sentence is that they were a group of people who believed and Donald Rumsfeld and Jonathan Yu and Paul Wolf, who heads Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland who's now at the top State Department official, their belief was that the US had won the Cold War and that victory gave us the privilege of dominating the world using our superior military uni power status and our superior military status for the next century. So their principal blueprint document is called Project for a New American Century. In other words, America would own the 21st century. So Brzezinski says, okay.
We should start start this process by moving NATO into all the former satellite states. Well, that and this was 1997. At that time, George Kennan was still around. Now George Kennan, as you know, was the principal architect of the Cold War containment policy. He's arguably the most important, most respected diplomat and statesman in American history.
Oh, he said, if you do that, you are gonna provoke a violent response from Russia. They cannot live with NATO on their borders. They cannot. Any more than we would live with, you know, with the Soviet alliance in Mexico and Canada. The at that time that the, Bill Perry was Clinton's secretary of state.
And Bill Perry said, if you do this, you go forward with this plan, I'm gonna resign because it's so foolhardy. You are you are forcing Russia into a violent military response. And the so the US ambassador, the Soviet Union, on at that time, who is now ahead of the of the CIA, said the same thing. It it it is it's the worst mistake America can make to move NATO to the east. So we went ahead and did it.
We moved it not at 1 not 1 inch, but 1,000 miles, 14 countries, and then we put nuclear ready missile launchers, Aegis missile systems, which are made by Lockheed and can take Tomahawk missiles 12 minutes from Moscow. We could, in 12 minutes, decapitate the entire leadership of Russia. And we put those in Poland and Romania, and we then tried to move it into Ukraine NATO into Ukraine. So you remember when my uncle, when when Russia puts up put missile systems nuclear missile systems in Cuba, and my uncle would have had to invade. He was able the reason Russia put them there then is because we had put nukes, Jupiter missiles, in Turkey and Italy.
My uncle and father made a, a secret deal with ambassador DelBrenin where we where they said, and look. We understand you're angry. You cannot live with Jupiter missiles in Turkey. That's why you put your missiles in Cuba. If you remove your missiles from Cuba within 6 months, we will remove ours from Turkey, but nobody says what the deal was.
And that's what happened. So now we're back, and we've again put, nuclear ready missile systems along right next to Russia. And now we wanna go through the one thing that Russia has said and Putin said again and again and again, this is a red line. Before Putin, the Russian leadership was saying, it is a red line. You cannot go into Ukraine.
The Russians have been invaded 3 times from you. Our country's never been invaded. The Russians were invaded 3 times through Ukraine. The last time they were invaded, Hitler killed between 20,040,000,000 Russians. Hitler killed 1 out of every 7 Russians.
In my uncle's speech to his most famous speech in in American University in in 1963 in July of 1963, he said to the American people, he said, you know, we're all taught we won won World War 2, but we didn't win World War 2. The Russians want it. And the sacrifice they made to destroy Hitler was beyond anything Americans can imagine. He was trying to tell the American people, you have to put your yourselves ourselves in their position and understand what they're doing. And he said, he said, a third of the country was leveled.
Every city, a forest burned. The cities were leveled. The forest and fields burned. Imagine if that happened from the coast the East Coast of the United States to every city, forest, and field from here to Chicago. That's what the Russians put up with.
Oh, we have to understand this. That Ukraine is a red line. The invasion came through Ukraine, and they can't live with it. It's an it's a security issue for them that is beyond our almost beyond our comprehension. And so, you know, we've had
Speaker 0: So that suggests the point is war with Russia.
Speaker 1: The point was war with Russia. And in fact, you know, the neocon said that again and again that our and and Biden, when he was at so and and let me get back to that. Okay? Because that is absolutely true. The, Biden, you know, was as well, first of all, in 2014 to go through with the modern history, 2014, there are riots, and it's called the Madone rebellion in Ukraine, which we're not told that we are financing those riots.
The the newspapers never told us. Our government never told us. USAID, which is a CIA front, put $5,000,000,000 into funding those riots. Those riots lead to the to a coup d'etat against the 1st elected democratically elected government of the Ukraine. It was government that refused to choose sides and to say we're gonna be on the side of the west, so we wanted them out.
A month before that government is overthrown, Victoria Nuland, who's, you know, the part part of the the centerpiece of Neocont ideology and who is now a high level official in the state department, has a secret call with the US ambassador, which is tape recorded and is now public, which anybody can go and look up, where she is picking the new cabinet for the Ukraine, which for Ukraine, which is, you know, which is a US Western cabinet. So they're picking a new government a month before the old government is overthrown.
Speaker 0: Is that how democracy is that democracy when Troy Noland fix your government?
Speaker 1: Well, that's that's the point is USAID doesn't really do and the CIA don't do democracy. You know, the CIA has overthrown, I think, 83 governments between 1947 and 1997. That's a third of the governments on Earth, and most of them were democracies. Oh, it doesn't do it doesn't do democracy. It does.
But then, you know, to put the rest of this history, and we put in a US a western government, the Russia everybody says, oh, the Russians started this by invading Crimea. But put yourself in Putin's position. And I'm not an apologist for Putin, by the way. He went into Ukraine. It was illegal.
My son went over there and fought against it, you know, and and risked his life in the u in Kharkiv rebellion. I'm not making excuse for him. What he did was brutal. It was illegal, and it was unnecessary, but we have to understand our role in the provocations. And so so if you're in Putin's position, now you're looking at Ukraine and Ukraine is being run by a pro US government.
What's the first thing he thinks? They're gonna take Vladivostok, which is the port in the Crimea on the Black Sea, which has been a Russian port, their only warm water port for 347 years. It's where the Russian navy is. Their sub base, it's everything else. And he says, now this new government is gonna invite the US navy in to take over our facilities.
We gotta go in there and take it back. So he goes into Crimea. He goes in and takes Crimea without killing without firing a shot or killing a certain a single person. The corrupt the Crimean population is is largely Russian, and they welcome the invasion. So, you know, again, I'm I'm making excuses for him, but I'm saying we have to understand my uncle always said we have to understand the rep the the, the position of our adversaries and, you know, what what forces are they dealing with.
So so then in 20 then the Russians now now there's, you know, as soon as we put it in that new government, the first rule they pass is to make the Russian language essentially illegal in Donbas and Lukas where 90% of the population are Russian. And they and there there's a peaceful uprising which people begin dying, you know, they're they turn violent. Now which side made them violent is a dispute, but it's not a dispute. The Russians were now being treated. The Russian ethnic Russian population in Ukraine is now being treated like red headed sepsis.
They're not you know, they're being slapped around. They're being abused, and they're not being allowed to practice their culture or their language. And so there's a vote then in the in, Indomass Lugans where they vote 90 to 10 to join Russia. Russia says no. Putin said no.
I don't want you, but let's sign an agreement that protects you. So they put together an agreement with France, Germany, and Russia called the Minsk Accords. The Minsk Accords say, leave Donbas and Lukhansk as part of Ukraine, but make them semi autonomous so they can speak their own language. And so the Russians who live there are gonna be protected from violence by the government. And, and the the only the Russian parliament or the Ukrainian parliament won't ratify the Minsk Accords, but France agreed to it.
Germany agreed to it, and Putin agreed to it. So then Zelensky runs in 2019. Zawinski is a comedian and he's an actor. And I'm not saying that in a derogatory way because my wife is a comedian and actor, but I'm saying it because here's a guy with no political background who wins the election with 90% of the vote. Why did he win the election?
He won the election because he ran on a peace platform. He ran promising that he would sign the Minsk of courts. He gets into office. The minute he gets there and he's told everybody, I'm gonna sign the Minsk Accords and settle the peace with Russia. He he suddenly pivots.
And the we don't know what happened, but the the rational assumption is that the US government told him he could not do that. So the Victoria Nuland and Anthony Blinken and April Haines, oh, who's the DNI director of National Intelligence, told them you cannot have a peace with Russia. Plus, people within, you know, ultra nationalists within Ukraine told them if you sign that, we're gonna kill you. And a lot of people say, anyway, they threatened him with death, and that is pretty well documented. Then Russia invades, but Russia only invades.
And so we say, oh, look. He you know, Putin is trying to take over Europe, but but they only send in 40,000 troops. I think there's 3 and a half 1000000 people in Kyiv, so they clearly did not wanna take the country. He he wanted he clearly wanted to bring people to the negotiating table. Table.
He did not send in enough troops to take all of of Ukraine. So so then and they and Liz Zelensky comes to the negotiating tables, and we now know this, and this is recent information. In March of 2022, Zelensky and Putin agree on a peace agreement that's based upon the Minsk Accords. There's it's like Minsk Accords 2 point o. And Zelensky initials it.
The Russians initial it, and Russia begins withdrawing its troops from Ukraine. And what happens? President Biden sends Boris Johnson over there to torpedo the agreement and make make Zelensky tear it up. And then we go to war, 350,000 Ukrainian kids are now dead. And, and, you know, 40 or 50,000 Russians.
So and and and that month, April, that April is when they signed it in March. April, we Boris Johnson was sent over there to torpedo it. And that month, Lloyd Austin, who is the secretary of defense under, under Biden, is asked why are we at war with with, in Ukraine? He said, our purpose in this war is to exhaust the Russian army and degrade its capacity to fight anywhere else in the world. That is not what they're telling us.
Speaker 0: But but
Speaker 1: today, Biden, that month, says when he's asked about the war in Ukraine, he says our purpose is regime change in Russia. So, again, that has nothing to do with Ukraine. What that means is that Ukraine is a proxy and essentially a struggle between 2 superpowers, between Russia and the United States. And, you know, we've now committed a $113,000,000,000 over there. And just to put that in perspective, the total budget of EPA is 12,000,000,000.
The total budget of the CDC is 12,000,000,000. We're sending a 113,000,000,000 over. When when, Mitch McConnell was asked, how can we do this? You know, when our country when you're cutting food stamps and cutting Medicare cutting food stamps to 30,000,000 Americans, cutting Medicare to 15,000,000 Americans, Americans, but they're not gonna have any health insurance. How can we spend a 100% to a 113,000,000,000 over there?
If we if we don't if we had that 113,000,000,000 here, we wouldn't have had to cut one food stamp payment. And he said, well, don't worry. The money is not staying in Ukraine. It's all coming back to military contractors in the United States. Well, so that's interesting because then you look at, you know, who owns those military contractors and and you see who gets on CNN to to bump up the Ukraine war.
It's a bunch of former generals and colonels and Pentagon people. But if you go in and and CNN never and MSNBC never do this. If you go look at those guys, they're all people who are working for Raytheon and General Dynamics and Boeing and Lockheed. So they're generals, but they're not identified that, you know, they're actually working for the military contractors who are cashing in on the war. And and, you know, those military contractors in turn are owned by 3 companies.
All of them are owned by 3 companies, by BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard. And and, you know, the inflation that from printing the money to fund the war and to fund the 2016,000,000,000,000 we spent to fund the lockdowns, COVID lockdowns, 8,000,000,000,000 we've spent on these wars since 2020. All of them losing wars. All of them that made our country less safe. Look at what this war is doing.
We push Russia into the embrace of China, which is the worst foreign policy outcome imaginable. It is not good for the national security of our country, and we're now have have have Putin's back to the wall. Well, Putin is the world's leading nuclear superpower. We aren't. He's got a 1,000 more nukes than we do, and their nukes are much better than ours.
They can shoot down our nukes. We can't shoot down theirs. Oh, you know, we're we are going up against it. It. You know, we are provoking a a a a confrontation that could very easily lead to nuclear war.
You know? And I've I've talked to
Speaker 0: Wait. Can I ask you to pause there for a second? Everything you've said is checkable and rational, and you're extrapolating out toward the future, which is easy to envision. Like, I don't really see I don't understand how our policymakers aren't reaching the same conclusions you just reached. Like, they think that war with Russia is where we're gonna win?
Speaker 1: We we cannot win this war. Well, of course, so what are they doing? I don't understand. Like Mexico beating us in a war. They're not gonna let the Ukraine.
They cannot lose this war. And, you know, anybody who thinks Russia is not up to the war, go look at the Netflix documentary on the Stalingrad and look at the sacrifice they were willing to that Russians are willing to make. Putin today, you know, we thought this was gonna hurt him. He's more popular than he's ever been. All the US polling firms show him polling at 90% popularity.
And and, you know In Russia. In Russia. The Russians are supporting him, and he also you know, we were we were gonna break him with the sanctions. We did the opposite. We made him more powerful.
He's now insulated from the, you know, from the trade and the international banking system. He's now got this great trade agreement with China. He's now, you know, engineering the creation of of BRICS, which we which has 40 leading nations around the world turning against the US currency, his reserve currency, and adopting his petro currency or the Chinese currency. That is the worst threat to the United States. That will plan if we lose that status world's reserve currency, you know, it the great depression will look like a cakewalk.
Speaker 0: So I agree with all of that and and all of its I mean, your position to my ears sounds moderate and obvious. I just don't understand how the secretary of state, how the president, how is it his competent advisers can't have reached the same conclusions. Like, what are they thinking?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, unfortunately, I think, and I, you know, I share your your sense of ministry about that.
Speaker 0: But I don't, you know because what you're saying is not crazy. It's on some far out theory.
Speaker 1: I mean, the only way I can explain it, and I'm not you know, I don't like to put look in other people's heads and and tell why they're doing one thing or another. But president Biden has always been a very pro war president, and, you know, he was the one senator that stood out supporting the Iraq war, my uncle, and Obama, and and many many and, you know, Hillary also. But Biden has always been a reliable, you know, gung ho, let's go to war guy. And, so I don't think, to the extent that he's thought this all through, I just I think it it follows. It's consistent with his historical instincts.
And then he's surrounded by people who are you know, these are the same people who got us in the Iraq war. I know. Look at what happened. Let let's just let me go through what happened in Iraq just for give me one minute to summarize the you know, we were tricked into Iraq by the neocons who told us that Saddam had something to do with the World Trade Center, which was a lie, And he had planted the anthrax attacks that came 5 days after the World Trade Center, which was a lie. That turned out to be, you know, the intelligence agencies in the US military at Fort Detrick.
That anthrax, the FBI found, came from Fort Detrick. So it was somebody in the US government who sent it to Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, who were the 2 senators in the week after 911 who were trying to block the Patriot Act. And they shut down congress, and the Patriot Act went through. And oh, so the the and then they told us Wait.
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait.
Speaker 1: Really? Yeah. Yes. And the FBI, after a year of investigation, traced the anthrax. It was a kind of Ames anthrax that was weaponized, and the only source of that in the world could be the US government.
And they traced it to Fort Detrick. And a bio lab there? Yes. The bio lab at Fort Detrick. The CIA bio lab at Fort Detrick.
Oh, somebody sent that in at the time the Patriot Act was being debated, and the 2 leading guys who were blocking it was Patrick Leahy and Tom Naschel were the recipients of it. It shut down congress. The Patriot Act goes through. And what does the Patriot do? 2 things.
I mean, it it it basically gets rid of a lot large part of the United States Constitution Bill of Rights and allows spying by intelligence agencies on the American people. And it reopens the bioweapons arms race because bioweapons were shut down in 1969 by, we we saw, you know, Nixon did this incredible thing of closing Fort Detrick shutting them down and saying we're no longer making bioweapons and then got everybody to sign a treaty in 73. Well, to to ban it bioweapons. The Patriot Act has a provision in it that says we're not walking away from the Geneva Convention, which makes you it's a hanging offense to develop bioweapons. We're not walking away from, from the bioweapons charter of 19 72, 1973.
But we are adopting a new rule that any federal official who violates those acts cannot be prosecuted. So it reopened. It effectively got rid
Speaker 2: of I'm
Speaker 0: sorry without a punishment.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But, anyway, you know, anyway, I forgot where we So
Speaker 0: so let me add this to an interesting segue because Tori and Newland kind of blithely announced during congressional testimony last year that, oh, by the way, we have these bio labs in Ukraine. Yeah. And that was, like, kind of ignored, and the people who covered it got attacked for covering it. But the fact remains there are US bio labs in Ukraine. Why would we have bio labs in Ukraine?
Speaker 1: We have bio lab labs in Ukraine because we're developing bioweapons. And, you know, and those bioweapons are using all kinds of new synthetic, biology and CRISPR technology and genetic engineering techniques that were not available to previous generation. They can make frightening, frightening stuff. What happened was, you know, when we walked away from when the Patriarch reopened the bio weapons arm brace in 2001, the Pentagon began putting a lot of money into bio weapons, but they were nervous at that time. Because if you violate Geneva, the Geneva Convention, it's a hanging offense.
And they weren't sure that that provision in the Patriot Act would actually hold up as a loophole to treaties that had been ratified by congress. So they were nervous about actually going full force into bioweapons development. Run by Anthony Fauci. So Anthony Fauci got all the responsibility for bioweapons development. He got at that time a 68% raise from the Pentagon in order to do that work.
So and that's why he was the highest paid official in American in the American government of, you know, 4 4000000 people in the American he's the high. He has more money. He got more money. $450,000 a year than the president. That any supreme court judge, any any member of congress, he was the highest paid.
And it's because he got that 68% raise from the Pentagon to do bioweapons development. Now when you do bioweapons development, every bioweapon needs a vaccine. So you develop them side by side. Because in a 100% of the cases, when you deploy a bioweapon, there's blowback. Your side also gets sick.
So in order to deploy one offensively, you need a vaccine to, to counter it. So you need to vaccinate your team before you deploy it. So those two things are are developed through it. I, a field of science called gain of function science where you take infectious where you take an infectious microbe and you amplify its infectivity, or you make it jump species. So it may kill monkeys.
Now you make it kill humans, And you adopt it that way, and there's all kinds of methods. And then you make it immune to antibiotics and to therapeutic drugs and to other therapies. So it's actually the inverse of medicine. For 28 100 years since Hippocrates, doctors have been trying to figure out how to make microbes less infectious and less deadly and develop antibiotics and therapeutics to do that. Well, this the guys who are involved in this, there's 36,000 what are called life scientists, but they're actually death scientists, who are now employed full time in developing, you know, microbes that will can be used to kill people.
Speaker 0: But given the experience we just had 3 years ago Yeah. Where a virus from a biolab Yeah. Upturned
Speaker 1: a little bit. Let me just finish this brief history about what happened. In 9 2014, 3 of those micros escaped. Fauci built labs all over the country in Galveston and Boston and everywhere. There are BSL 4 labs.
We don't even know how many there are. BSL 3, BSL 4. We have no idea how many there are. There's, you know, we've counted them. I have a new book coming out that goes through the ones we know, but there are many secret ones that people don't know about.
And they're doing it here in the United States. But in 2014, 3 bugs escaped from 3 different labs. And they were high profile breaks, and they were very dangerous in the smallpox and, and a couple of other bad bad bad microbes. The public learned about it, and there was a lot of publicity. Congress held the hearings.
300 scientists wrote president Obama and said you've gotta shut down Anthony Fauci because he's gonna create a microbe that will, that will cause a global pandemic. And so Obama signed a moratorium that shut down the 18 worst of Anthony Fauci's experiments where most of them were taking place in Galveston and in North Carolina by a scientist called Ralph Barrick down there. And and instead of obeying that law, Anthony Fauci shifted a lot of his operations offshore. And those operations ended up, most of them, in the Wuhan lab, which is a military lab. And that the Chinese run, the People's Liberation Army.
And, and then a lot of them went to the Ukraine. So a lot of that science now and it's funded not you know, Fauci was funding lots of it, But then the the other government agencies began to get confidence in, you know, their ability to get away with it. And most of it is being funded by the Department of Defense. The most of all, the biggest single funder is USAID, which is, you know, a CIA cutout.
Speaker 0: Do you think the lab leak was a leak or was it intentional?
Speaker 1: Well, I the best science shows that. It indicates that the people who were working on a particular coronavirus technology that was taught by Ralph Barrick, funded. It was developed by the US government, by with NIH money. It was then taught to a group of scientists, Shizheng Li, who's famous, the bat lady, and then her assistant Ben Hu, and a couple of other scientists at the Wuhan lab. Eric taught them 2 things.
He taught them, 1, how to engineer the spike with a fern cleave that could attach the ACE 2 receptors of the human lungs and make people sick and spread, you know, through the air. He taught them another trick that has nothing to do with public health conceivably, which is a technique called seamless legation, which is a technique for disguising the evidence of human tampering. So you can make the microbe and then you can erase the evidence that human beings actually made that microbe. And, and and and Ben Hu was leading that research. Ben Hu then got sick with 2 other of his fellow researchers, and they ended up in the hospital with COVID symptoms in November of 2019.
So it it appears that Ben Hu and then Ben Hu, the subway line that goes has the Wuhan lab and goes straight to the airport. All the original cases were along that subway line. And so the intelligence the intelligence agencies that are actually being honest about that and most of them are not, believe that Ben Hu and 2 other researchers got sick in that the most likely scenario is that Ben Hu and 2 other researchers who were working on infectious coronavirus bioweapons got sick and got with and they didn't know it. And so they were riding that subway line every day and infecting people before they actually got symptoms. And that's probably what happened, but we nobody knows.
Speaker 0: You've said a number of times publicly, many times publicly, and I I think it's now being confirmed that CIA had knowledge of at at best had knowledge of your uncle's assassination, new things. It's still being hidden now. What do you think, and that's obviously true. What do you think the motive was in that killing?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the people who were involved in it the specific people who were involved in it were, were almost all associated with the Miami station, which was the largest CIA station at that time. It was basically it was a Cuban station. And the people who were involved in that station were people like Bill Harvey, and David Atlee Phillips who was clearly involved in my uncle's assassination. He was by all evidence, he was Lee Harvey Oswald's handler at the CIA. And and then E Howard Hunt who made a confession, David Morales, who is the, you know, the chief hitman.
He ran the Operation Phoenix program in Vietnam. He killed 10,000 people, civilians over there, murdered them. And he he also gave a confession of being in Dallas. And then there were most of the people were associated with Cuba, and the, you know, the and and the impetus came from that group of people who were who were angry at my uncle for not sending an air cover during the pigs invasion and even more so after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. My uncle then developed this friendship with Khrushchev and he shut down all of the Cuban attacks by Alpha 66.
And these other groups that were harassing Cuba, they were sinking ships, sinking Russian ships. They were operating flintillas out of South Florida and and doing raids on and uncle and father sent the coast guard down to confiscate their boats and their weaponry and to arrest the ones that continue to do it. And those people, those individuals, were also you know, have been traced and and tracked the assassination, and and, you know, over the years. And they're now there's been, you know, there's millions of documents. I mean, they you know?
Speaker 0: But why not really sell the what doesn't make sense to me is why not just admit it now? I mean, no no one you described would be is still alive or
Speaker 1: is living in the city. Everybody now, all virtually So
Speaker 0: why wouldn't Biden declassify these documents?
Speaker 1: I don't know why. And why would Trump not try
Speaker 0: to I agree. I totally why I know why Trump wouldn't because he was convinced by Mike Pompeo not to. So and it's not an excuse. We're not
Speaker 1: you know? Yeah. So we don't we don't know what what what what Mike Pompeo said to him then.
Speaker 0: No. But that's the point.
Speaker 1: Like, what what would possibly be requires them to do it. So they they they if he has assassinations law require that all documents be released by 20 17.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And, and yet they refuse. So they
Speaker 0: But it suggests that there's something about big there.
Speaker 1: 4,000 of them, that are left. And you you have to assume. And, again, I don't try I try not to talk about things that I cannot document. Right. But I I think there's a it's a fair assumption that they're not protecting individuals, that they're protecting some institutional interests.
Speaker 0: What's the most powerful institution in America?
Speaker 1: Well, I, you know, I I again, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna I I I don't know. I don't know. And I and, you know, I
Speaker 0: You don't know? Yeah. It's but it's it's there must be something because, like, why wouldn't they just release it?
Speaker 1: And by the way, for people, you know, you you and I having this conversation about who did the assassination and why they did it, a lot of that is the stuff that I've told you. And I've tried to stick to things that, you know, that are documentable and the names, etcetera. But for people who want real, you know, kind of a panoramic view of what happened, I think the best book that's been written about this is Jim Douglas's book, which is called The Unspeakable because he's done something that, you know, after the Warren Commission, that became the orthodoxy. And the New York Times and all the major news organizations have enforced that orthodoxy. And anybody who challenged that orthodoxy becomes a conspiracy theorist.
And in fact, in 1967, the CIA sent a letter out to an e a telecom out to all of its operation Mockingbird people, which are all the the assets it had in the American press. More than 400 people, editors, senior editors, senior writers in the American press saying, from now on, anybody who questions the single gunman theory of the of the Kennedy assassination be should be characterized as a conspiracy theorist. So they didn't coin the word conspiracy theory, but they popularized it with that memo. They sent a memo out to all their stations saying that talk should be discouraged. So those, you know, what happened after that is then in 1979, the House Assassinations Committee met for a year and a half, and they looked at much more evidence than the Warren Commission did, including, you know, Alan Dulles.
Alan Dulles had run the Warren Commission. He was the head of the CIA, and my uncle fired. When my uncle died, he said, I'm glad the little shit is dead. He thought he was a god. That's what he said to a young reporter.
And then he becomes head of the commission that you know, it shouldn't have been called the Warren Commission. It should be called the dollar because Earl Warren was had a full time job at the Supreme Court. The only and all the other guys on the Warren Commission had full time jobs as senator and congressman. The only guy who went to every meeting and, you know, looked at every piece of evidence and developed the questions for the witnesses was Alan Dulles. He was running the entire Warren Commission, and he should have been the prime suspect in the in the crime.
And he was communicating secretly with the people at the CIA, with David Hadley Phillips, with George Hahnadees, who was the CIA liaison, telling them what, you know, what questions were gonna be asked and what they should reveal, and with J. Edgar Hoover at the same time. The whole thing was a coordinated kind of, kabuki theater, but then congress goes back and investigates it in 79. And congress then comes back after a year and a half seeing a lot more stuff and says, and they conclude this was a conspiracy.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: So they make that official. You know? So anybody who says it was just Lee Harvey Oswald is is different from the people who actually made the investigation.
Speaker 0: So so get
Speaker 1: get not of the people on that staff who I've talked to believe that it was the CIA. And as you know at that time, the dip dispute between them was was it the mob or the CIA because there was a lot of mob involvement. You know, Johnny Rizzelli, Sam Giancana, who was the Chicago boss, Santo Straficante, who was the Tampa boss, and Carlos Marcello, who was New Orleans boss, were all involved. And they all had casinos in Havana, and they were working with the CIA to assassinate Castro. So they had a hitman at their disposal, and they were training Cubans who were sharpshooters for Batista as a hitman.
And I've talked to some of the hitmen. I've talked to Antonio Veggiano, who was involved and who was also David Atlee Phillips, handler. David Atlee Phillips was his handler, and he was Lee Harvey Oswald's handler. So Veggiano met Oswald in Dallas in, I think in September of of of 1963. I've talked to, you know, the people who were actually working for the CIA and the mob at that time, you know, to kill Castro and how they were then pivoted to this.
You know, some of them were pivoted to this new project.
Speaker 0: If you became president if you become president, what do you do about those 4,000,000 federal employees, about the agencies which are running effectively as autonomous governments within our government? Like, how do you the last president can when was the last president who controlled the agencies? And how would you do it?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I I feel like I'm probably and I don't wanna seem like, you know, I'm being vague, but I feel that because of the the confluence of my experience over the past 4 years that I'm actually probably the only one that can unravel that agency capture. And and let me tell you this. My doctor-in-law who is co running my campaign with Dennis Kucinich, Amaryllis Fox, was a CIA agent in the client and service for most of her career. And, what she'll tell you and, you know, she has a very sanguine view of the CIA, the same as mine.
And also understands all this evidence that the agency, you know, was involved in the in the murder of my uncle and and the cover up, continues to be involved in the cover up. But what will tell you is that of the 24,000 people who work for the agency, 20,000 of them are patriotic Americans and good public servants. And that there's there's some people mainly in a plant station. The espionage division of the CIA is, you know, is made up of extraordinary people principally who are, who are doing an important job of protecting our country. The espionage division is the division that does, that does, information gathering and analysis, and the president needs that.
The plans division is the action division. They are the ones that assassinate people, fix elections, you know, overthrow governments, and do all the, the things that I think we're paying for in our foreign policy today and in our domestic policy. My father was gonna separate those divisions. My uncle ultimately was gonna do that too. My uncle thought the CIA you know, he came out of his office during the big pigs, and he said, I wanna take the CIA, shatter it into a 1,000 pieces, and scatter it to the winds.
He then asked my father to run the agency. He said, you're the only one I trust to do this. And my father said it and my grandfather said, you can't do that. You can. It it would be like Molotov and you can't do that.
You can't. It it would be like Molotov and Stalin. You can't have the the brother of the president running a secret spy agency with all this extraordinarily hidden power. But they brought in John McComb to run it, but John McComb, you know, was not able to handle it. And, and my father, a week before he died, taught told one of his closest friends, Pete Hamill, who you may have known.
Speaker 0: But he was Pete Hamill, the journalist?
Speaker 1: Yeah. The journalist. Yeah. Of course. He told Pete Hamill Pete Hamill said, what are you gonna do about the CIA?
And my father said, I'm gonna separate the plans division from, espionage, and that's the only way to make it work. And that still makes a lot of sense today. Incidentally, I had dinner with Mike Pompeo, I don't know, 3 weeks ago. And he said something really interesting to me, which
Speaker 0: is Wait. You had dinner with Mike Pompeo? Yeah.
Speaker 1: He was famous. And he said something. What was that? It was it was it was the weirdest dinner I've ever been to. If I told you the other people were at that dinner Well, because
Speaker 0: I just can't imagine too if I know Mike Pompeo. I'm not attacking Mike Pompeo, but I can't imagine too. To talk to people who have more different views.
Speaker 1: No. No. I've always, you know, my my I have a kind of natal hostility toward Mike Pompeo, but I never knew him. And but, you know, just because he was from people who don't know know he was the CIA director, and and he was secretary of state under Trump. And, but he's a he's an interesting guy.
He's smart. Very smart. He's a Harvard. I think he went to Harvard Law School. I ended up at Harvard undergrad, and then I think he had a military career.
Army
Speaker 0: officer. Yep.
Speaker 1: And he, you know, he's he's by all on paper, he's kind of a great American by all you know, his CV is extraordinary. Oh, and you never know. You know, you make judgments about people before you meet them. And my judgment about them, I still don't know what to think of them, but I but this what he said
Speaker 0: wound up at dinner I'm sorry. Bobby Kennedy and Mike Pompeo in Vegas It wasn't just the 2 of us. If I'd stumbled across that, I would've stopped.
Speaker 1: It wasn't just the 2 of us. It was me. The rest of the group makes the story even even weirder. So I'm not I'm I'm not even gonna I don't know if I'll even go there. But but he said to me before dinner, you know, I was I had a moment with him.
And he said to me, he said, you know, when I was at the CIA, I did not do what I should have done to fix that agency. And he said, you know, I and he he was expressing regret. And he said, and then he turned to me and like looked me down in the eye and he said, the entire upper edge line of that agency is made up of individuals who do not believe in the democratic institutions of the United States of America. That's a quote. And
Speaker 0: But so it was Mike Pompeo who, convinced Trump not to release this file, and it was a guy who worked for Mike Pompeo texted me the day after I revealed that those files showed CIA complicity in your uncle's death, which they do because I talked to someone who read them. And I said that on Fox News, and I got a text from a guy who works for Mike Pompeo informing me that I have just broken federal law and that anyone who had told me that was a felon, because we had revealed classified information. And I said, wait a second. That classified information suggests the US government was involved in the murder of an American president. Yeah, that that's Mike Pompeo's position on that.
Yeah. So it's a little bit weird for him to say, I think.
Speaker 1: Well, there's a 1000000000 documents classified Yeah. I know. In the top secret. So, you know, they can call it they can stamp that stamp on anything they want to. That's a lawyer's trick, you know, to
Speaker 0: to put. And he was also behind keeping, convincing Trump not to pardon Assange.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, you know, that confirms my earlier assessment of, of Mike Pompeo.
Speaker 0: That's interesting. You like him? No. It says a lot. Okay.
So you have, there's a documentary called Midnight at the Border, about your visit to the border, California, Arizona border with Mexico, and I just wanna play a clip from it for our, for people who haven't seen it.
Speaker 2: We did 2 weeks to travel from Senegal to Nicaragua. After Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, and here. I'm going to New York to join my uncle. My dream is to leave the to dream Americans, to live in America, to work and to help my family.
Speaker 1: We coordinate with the airport in Phoenix, and then out they go to the final destination the same day.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I hope to begin a new life. Yeah. My brother, Lucia, he's a citizen. K.
Good luck. Goodbye.
Speaker 1: Most people bring the money or have a sponsor that buys their ticket. What happens if if, families don't have the money to buy the blind ticket? Well, FEMA reimburses us. We can we can buy that ticket and and, send that buy the ticket for. Yeah.
Speaker 0: What did you learn from that?
Speaker 1: Okay. You know, what I saw was so extraordinary that it took me 3 days to even understand what I was looking at on because the first night I I land I go to Yuma, and I get to the wall at, at 2 AM. And I watch the first group. There's a gap in the wall there. And I watched the first group come across, which was about 110 men from West Africa, mainly from Ghana.
They're all sort of military age men from Ghana. And by calling them military age men, I'm not making any implications about what they're here for. I'm just saying it's just a way of describing them. They were people between 1825 I've got it. So I expected to see a lot of Central Americans coming up, you know, and then, and that was not what I saw.
And then the next group was, again, about the same number. There were 2 busloads of people, and I interviewed every one of them. I talked to each one. And I wanna say this, what we're seeing there, a lot of people come from the to this issue of you know, I I think we need to close that wall. We need to close the border right now.
And I'm gonna explain to you why. A lot of people come to this issue from a sort of nationalistic or even a racist or xenophobic pet posh. And I'm not coming from that place. I'm coming from a place of compassion and a place of, you know, just concern for our country. And and, you know, this is a this is a heartbreaking humanitarian crisis, and everything that happens to these migrants along the way is terrible.
Oh, the next group that came and what what's happening to our country is a a catastrophe. And by the way, I was a person who ridiculed Trump's wall. Okay? So and now I've been down there, and I've talked to everybody down there. And, you know, I have a different position.
I don't think you need to build a 2,200 mile physical barrier from San Diego at Brownsville, Texas. But we definitely need physical barriers in densely populated area. We definitely because this, we cannot survive what's happening there now. The next group that came over were, again, about 110 people. There are 2 busloads.
The cartels dropped them on right on the other side of the wall in these buses, and there's 50 5 people per bus. Oh, the next group, there were people from Azerbaijan and from Kazakhstan, from Uzbekistan, from Afghanistan, from Pakistan, from Tibet, Nepal, and many from India, and the most came from China. There were only 2 families we met the entire night who were from, who were from Latin America, none from Central America. Interesting. One from Colombia and one from Peru.
And they were the only ones
Speaker 2: who
Speaker 1: had legitimate claims. They you know, of asylum claims. Everybody else we talked to said I'm here to have a better life. Well, that is not if you want if that's why you come to America, then you have to go through the front door. You know?
Go to the embassy. Yeah. You gotta go to the embassy. Well, they don't even have a legitimate any legitimate plan to be in the United States. Nevertheless, the the border patrol and the border patrol is so, disillusioned and discouraged.
I think there's 9 of the border patrolmen we were told had committed suicide in the last year because of what they're being forced to do. They're not protecting the border. They what they do is they fingerprint they can hold the hold the the migrants for 72 hours. They fingerprint them, and they see if they're if they have a criminal record. If they have a criminal record, they're put in a different process.
But, otherwise, they're then asked where they wanna go. And if they don't have a plane ticket, they are brought to the airport. The DHS purchased them a ticket and sends them anywhere they wanna go in the United States.
Speaker 0: So the country's getting poorer every year. Our country's getting poorer every year. We're in a poor place right now. What how who came up with I mean, why do we owe plane tickets to people who come here illegally?
Speaker 1: It it it it's it as far as I can tell, and there's a lot of evidence for this, and it's in our film, is that the Biden administration came in, you know, in the same position I was, which is any which is the wall is bad. But more import more importantly, anything Donald any idea that Donald Trump had is a bad idea. So they just opened the border, and they've had this open border policy where, where, they they have not hired the judges. That's the most important thing that needs to be done. The judges need to be hired so that these cases, if the asylum case cases can be adjudicated right at the border, and people who are not entitled to asylum are sent back.
But that's not what's happening. What happens is they're all given claims, and they're told to appear in court, and they go to an arraignment fairly soon after arriving in Boston or New York or Miami or wherever Minneapolis, wherever they're going. And then they're given a court date, which on average is 7 years out. So they're, there's so then they're they're in
Speaker 0: I hope next time I get arrested, I get the same courtesy.
Speaker 1: Oh, they're in our country then for 7 years, but and let me just tell you from their point of view what's happened. First of all, the cartels are now controlling our immigration policy in the United States. All of these people who came across came across knowing exactly what was gonna happen to them because they had seen it on advertisements. The cartels are sending around the world on TikTok and on YouTube. It tells you what you need to do to get in, where you what airports you fly into, what visas you get, how to get them, and how to get to the cartel parking lots where the buses will take you.
Some of them fly into Nicaragua. Most of them fly to directly to Mexico City and from anywhere in the world. These are not, you know, Central American, Latin American. They're coming from everywhere. They come to they fly to Mexico City.
The cartel has a system getting a Mexican visa, and then they are put on a domestic flight to Mexicali. And in Mexicali, there's a big parking lot with, with buses operated by the cartels. The cartels charge them between 10,000, $15,000 a piece to get through, and then they drive them up to the wall and they unload them. We watch them unloading them on the other side. They, large numbers of them get, get abused.
They get extorted. They get exploited. They get robbed, raped, beaten. The Peruvian family that I met had every, penny taken from. And he said my whole life savings was taken from me.
There's a tree that we could see from where we were in the day when it was daylight. It's called the rape tree, where the cartels extract final payment from women who are crossing the border. If there are attractive women that they in their view, and I I don't mean physically attractive, but if it's attractive for whatever their purpose is, to sell or to, you know, to traffic or whatever or children, Those children are separated out. We the Colombian family had lost a child girl and a teenage girl. And, you know, the father was desperate, and they they she had been separated from them by the cartels before they passed.
Oh my gosh. And 85,000 children have disappeared in this process. It it's it's monstrous. Sue, all the But then let me tell you this. They get into our country and there's a lot of people who are well meaning, mainly liberal people who care, who, you know, see themselves as deeply caring people who say, we should have sanctuary cities and we should you know, these people should be treated with dignity.
But what really happens to them in real life is that they get here and then they for for 7 years, none of them are legal. So they are now subject to terrible exploitation by unscrupulous employers all over this country. They're getting paid $6 or $5 an hour because they have no leverage in their employer. Of course. And that damage the wages where every other That's exactly right.
It steals the leverage from American workers. And and there's 16,000,000 of them here now, and they're crushing the social safety systems social safety nets in cities like New York has 95,000 of them have landed in New York. New York is now thinking of turning Roosevelt Island into an open air refugee camp, And there's a proposal that was on Bloomberg of turning Central Park or parts of it into open air camps for, for migrants. Oh, and that, you know, Eric Adams, who's the mayor, has been saying, this has gotta end. You know, we have to close the border.
And a lot of these mayors who were people who were saying we, you know, we're sanctuary cities and getting that, you know, you know, aligning themselves with that are now seeing what it really means. And it it does not mean human treating people humanely. It is the worst possible thing we can meanwhile, 7,000,000 have come across in 3 years. 7,000,000 illegally. In that same time, there's only been 3,100,000 legal immigrants.
So these are the people who waited in line. For every one of them, there are more than 2 illegal ones coming across and taking those places. And that, you know, a lot of the, anyway, that, you know, it's not it's not something that's sustainable. It's something that needs to end right away. And that that the if it the the cartels which are making Billy, the cartel, the Mexican drug cartels are literally running US immigration policy.
This time, not the president of the United States.
Speaker 0: And and corrupting the southwest United States. Last question. Will you succeed in getting a debate with Biden, do you think?
Speaker 1: I don't I don't I don't know. I mean, I think it's not very democratic to not do the debate. I hope that he will debate me. And I I can tell you this, and I I also hope that he'll come out and campaign because I'm seeing a vision of America in the you know, both Trump and Biden are are boasting about the economic prosperity that they've brought to our country. It's unusual to have 2 former presidents running against each other.
Both of them are are proclaiming their their their economic record. But I'm seeing things in this country that I never believed that I would see. I mean, I'd say, people living in a level of desperation that I you know what? I I I don't know. I've I've talked about I have a friend called Keith Amato who is and, you know, I represent a commercial fisherman for almost all my career as an environmental lawyer.
And he's one of my closest friends. And he, he's been he ran he worked hard his whole life fishing out of Wellfleet and peatown and, and Chatham. And but and his his son-in-law now owns a fishing business, but he has no pension and he has no and he's on full disability. You know, a lot of injuries and a lot of damage during his life. Oh, he was collecting food stamps.
$283 he was getting a month, and it's critical to his arrival. Even then, he was saying he was telling me, you know, I have to switch recipes to make to be able to get through the through the checkout line. You know? I have to buy cheaper recipes and get fillers, etcetera. And in the last 2 years, the price of food, because to fund these wars that we're, you know, we're funding, they print money and that means inflation, and that's a tax on the poor.
Oh, the price of food has gone up by 38%. The price of of basic food stuff, chicken, eggs, and milk have gone up 78%. So his food stamps were 78%, you know, less valuable. On March 1st this year, he got a phone call from the a government phone call, robocall. The recorded voice told him that he was getting his food stamps cut to $23 a month, so 90%.
30,000,000 Americans got that phone call. And, you know, that's the same month we ratcheted up our contributions to the Ukraine at at to Ukraine at 30 a 113,000,000,000. And we print the Fed printed 300,000,000,000 unanticipated dollars to pay for the failure of the Silicon Valley Bank. There's lots of money for for and we and we we began cutting 15,000,000 people from the rat welfare rolls. Since then, 4,000,000 have been cut.
This is on political this morning from from the Medicare rolls. Those oh, there's no money for poor Americans. And the people that I see are living because of the inflation and because of what's happening at this with this desperation. The average wage in this country is now $5,000 left less than the cost of, of basic goods of food, transportation, and housing. So half of Americans are making up that gap by putting it on their credit card bills.
And this week, we passed $1,100,000,000,000 in credit card debt. That's the first time in history. Most of that or 330,000,000,000 of that has been in the Biden and Trump administration. 2 men were saying I you know, I'm I'm helping America. The $1,000,000,000,000 in credit card debt, and those people are paying 22% interest.
If the mafia did that, it would be called loan sharking.
Speaker 0: Not dischargeable in bankruptcy, by the way.
Speaker 1: Right? And it can't be discharged. Oh, you're I'm meeting people who are, you know, couples who are sitting at their dining room tables and trying to figure out how how this math works for them because they can't. They're they're having to make choices. People in this country are choosing between food and gasoline and and food and medicine.
And they're they're listening to a a little baby crying in the room next door, young couples, and having to have them wonder whether that baby is $50 sick or $100 sick or 500 or $1500 sick before they bring them to a hospital. And, you know, my wife and I were talking about the other night, and we were talking about this epidemic of depression and mental illness and anxiety that is afflicting Americans in a deterioration, the sense of the wheels are falling off. And she said, you know, that's the way I felt when she was living in poverty. She said, that's the way I felt when the engine light came on my car because I knew there was no money to pay it. And you have all these Americans now who are living hand to mouth and they do not feel that anybody is listening to them in the political process.
They feel they've been completely abandoned by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and that those parties are now serving elites. And, and that, you know, their voices aren't being heard. And particularly now, you know, the Democratic Party has had this very interesting shift where when I grew up, my when my uncle's friends and my father was in, the Democratic Party was where the people who are poor and working people are. And today, 70% of the wealth in this country is owned by the Democratic Party and only 30% the Republican Party. The top ten counties, the top richest counties in this country, 9 of the 10 are democratic counties.
So there is this kind of shift in in, in wealth that maybe is one of the reasons that, democrats do not seem to be talking to or for working people anymore. But I'm you know, the people that I talk to both through my job of representing them, you know, in you know, I'm representing a 1000 families in Columbiana County, Ohio, Eastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, Western West Virginia, whose lives were abandoned by the Norfolk Southern spill. And, you know, they are just living in a level of desperation that I never thought I'd see in the United States. And, you know, my father used to bring us to, to Southeast Washington. He'd load us in in a station wagon and bring us to Southeast Washington to to meet people who were who were poor.
Or he'd take us to Mississippi Delta or West Virginia to Appalachia or the Indian reservations. And he'd always said to us, these these are your people. He said the people are wealthy and the people who have, you know, the big corporate leaders and titans, they don't need the Kennedys. They have, they have lawyers and they have PR firms and they have lobbyists. And he said, these are your people.
And he came back from from, the Mississippi Delta one night, and he said to we were all eating. There were like 9 of our kids in the dining room at that time. And he said, I was in a tar paper shack today. There were 2 families there and they eat one meal a day, and the kids go to bed hungry. And he said, when you grow older, I want you to do something about those people.
And, you know, that's one of the reasons that I'm running.
Speaker 0: Robert F. Kennedy junior, thank you very much for that.
Speaker 1: Thank thank you.
Speaker 0: Appreciate it. It. John here, people say the news is full of lies.
Speaker 2: On Kennedy's motorcade.
Speaker 0: 139 to the death of Jeffrey Epstein.
@bambkb - Kevin - WE THE PEOPLE❤️ - DAD🦁 🐉 🔥
This man absolutely goes OFF!! TRUTH after TRUTH after TRUTH after TRUTH!!! What can you really say to this?! #Russia #Ukraine #USA
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker highlights the lack of attention and outcry when people in Palestine, Syria, Libya, and Iraq suffer, as well as when Ukrainians violate the rights of others. They question why there is no concern for the Indian minorities whose rights are violated by the Indian government. The speaker believes that the West, particularly the United States, is the root cause of global chaos and destruction. They mention a Pentagon-funded biological laboratory in Ukraine and the Ukrainian massacres that have gone unnoticed. Russia's request is for others to stay away from its borders. The speaker asserts that Ukraine is being used by the United States and the West, falling into their trap.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When the people in Palestine are losing their lives, being raped and murdered, there's no cry from anybody, no passion. When the same thing happens in Syria, we hear nothing. When the same thing happens in Libya, we hear nothing. When the same thing happens in Iraq, we hear nothing. When the Ukrainians are violating the rights of other Ukrainians, particularly in the Donbas region, There's nobody crying for those people.
What is the reason for that? What about India? Why is there nobody in this country Raising the concerns of the Indian minorities of the Christians and the Muslim whose rights are being violated by the Indian government. Nobody in this country is saying anything about it. Now NATO went on and warned many of the Russian allies.
Russia could do absolutely nothing about it and stayed out of it. What did Russia say? Demilitarization. Stay away from my Russian borders. If you notice what has been happening since 1990, they are coming closer and closer and closer to the Russian border until they will make Russia so weak that Russia will have no other option but to give in to them.
That is what it is all about. But who is the root cause of this whole problem? It is clearly the West and the United States of America that is the root cause of all the mayhem and chaos and destruction all over the world. Yes, please. Let's talk about the biological laboratory which is funded by the Pentagon in Ukraine.
Where is it coming from? Why are they getting involved in those? Let's Stop. Let's talk about the number of people that were massacred by the Ukrainians who have been detained without, at trial, nobody has said anything about that as well. Okay?
Let's talk about the shelling of the hospitals and the schools And the massacre and the mass graves that were found in Ukraine, nobody says anything about that. Now what is Russia asking for? Russia is saying stay away from my borders and stay away from me. All you have been doing, and remember, Ukraine is being used as a fool by the United States and the West, and they're falling into the trap like many other Countries have fallen in the trap previously, and that's what it is all about.
@MaxEvansUMP - ULTRA MAGA PARTY 👑
"We're being lied to about EVERYTHING on an epic scale— and UKRAINE IS AT THE CENTER OF IT ALL!" https://t.co/0NCrq5xw8R
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses frustration with the polarized views on Vladimir Putin and Ukraine, comparing it to the binary choices between white supremacy and the Democratic narrative. They mention interference, lies about COVID, Russia collusion, and Ukraine impeachment. The speaker questions whether Ukraine possesses chemical or biological weapons and criticizes the media for not discussing it. They also mention the selection of leaders and the potential for election fraud. The speaker believes the focus on Russia and Ukraine is a lie, claiming that Putin has warned against globalist control. They criticize money laundering in Ukraine and highlight Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's influence on US policy. They accuse Maria Yovanovitch of being a traitor and highlight the hypocrisy surrounding the impeachment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're being corralled into this box where we either have to hate Vladimir Putin and believe everything evil that said about him and love Ukraine, and there's no in between. And that reminds me a lot of you're either a white supremacist or you go with the democrat narrative on everything under the sun. The most lethal terrorist threat to the homeland today. White supremacy. And I'd I wanna understand white rage, and I'm white.
I mean, there's This is much interference yet as you could possibly imagine before it even gets to Hunter Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, and all of their who are millions from Ukrainian people. Pointing. These days, it's hard to believe anything because they've lied about COVID. They lied about Russia collusion. They lied about the Ukraine impeachment trial.
And there's so much more going on in Ukraine that nobody is talking about. Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons? My job as a journalist is to try to understand what is the truth here. I don't like being lied to, and we're being lied to on an epic scale. When we're Hold your only choices.
You have to be a 100% with Zelensky. Oh, God. Who's a puppet who you can find on the Internet in black stilettos and leather pants. Zelensky was selected like so So many of our leaders. And, honestly, with big tech and with election fraud these days, we don't know how many leaders all around the world have been selected it for us.
And we're actually voted in. How to build back better. We have to build back better. Build back better. If Donald Trump gets the Republican nomination.
There are many of us that will move heaven and earth to ensure he doesn't win. We are fighting the same battles all over the To pretend that this war is about Russia and Ukraine is a bare faced lie. Putin has been warning for 15 years that he is not going to stand by While the globalist take over the world, build bioweapons facilities and whatever else they're doing in Ukraine, Ukraine has been a center of money laundering for many of the leaders in this country. 1,000,000,000 of US dollars have been laundered through Ukraine, and we say nothing about it. Does nobody question these things?
We have like lieutenant colonel Vindman. Mister Vindman Lieutenant colonel Vindman, please. Do you always insist on civilians calling you by and sits there as a lieutenant colonel. He didn't even make colonel. And he's telling the president of the United States what his policy should be.
You have a traitor In the form of Maria Yovanovitch, who was Obama's ambassador, who's telling Ukrainian government officials, don't listen to the will of the American people. In his July 25th phone call with Ukrainian president Zelensky. The president badmouthed Yovanovitch, calling her bad news. I was shocked. Absolutely shocked.
And then She's given a cushy job for life at Georgetown University, and we're told that the president of the United States cannot say to his foreign counterparts that we want you to look into something. If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money. Oh, son of a bitch. And they put in place someone who was solid. So much hypocrisy and dishonesty here, and Ukraine is at the center of it all.
@SpartaJustice - Truth Justice ™
@TuckerCarlson The truth about Russia and Ukraine. https://t.co/1W7AHktNcb
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses US interference in Ukraine and its implications. It mentions the historical background of Western Ukraine siding with the Nazis during World War 2 and the emergence of extremist groups in Ukraine. It highlights the influence of the CIA, US State Department, and IMF in Ukraine's affairs, including orchestrating a coup against Yanukovych. The video also touches on the war in Ukraine and its impact on globalization. It suggests that the conflict is driven by the desire for control over Ukraine's resources and the deep state's involvement. It concludes by mentioning the need for dialogue and a "great reset" to address global issues.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The first casualty of war is the truth. And if the American people knew the truth about US interference in Ukraine, they might not be so eager to start World War 3. During World War 2, Western Ukraine sided with the Nazis. Operating with them within the Ukraine. After decades of CIA infiltration, the Ukrainian People's Movement emerged in 1989 and gave birth to extremist groups, Svoboda, Trident, and Right Sector, neo Nazi groups pushing for the ethnic cleansing of Ukraine.
Extremist groups cultivated by the CIA, supported by the US state department, and used by the IMF to bring Ukraine to heal. When Yanukovych beat NATO backed, Yushchenko, in the 2010 elections, his government was being pressured into signing an EU association agreement by the International Monetary Fund in their typical conquer by debt offer, that would financially ruin the Ukraine and place them at the mercy of the World Bank. Yanukovych declined their offer. And in today's corrupt world, you're not allowed to say no to the IMF. Funded by Western NGOs associated with George Soros and the CIA, a highly organized color revolution was immediately deployed against Yanukovych.
Leaked phone calls reveal that the US state department was orchestrating this coup d'etat from within the US embassy with support from vice president Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Sullivan's come back to me, VFR saying you need Biden, and I said probably tomorrow for an Boy, and I get the deets to stick. So Biden's willing.
Speaker 2: So you had this remarkable phone call where you have these 2 senior officials of the US government apparently talking about coup Or how they were planning to restructure the government of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Fuck the EU. No. Exactly.
Speaker 0: Supporting a criminal war against Russia does not make you a patriot. It makes you a useful idiot of the globalist banking cartel, the very same entities waging war on all of humanity with vaccine passports and experimental jazz. The
Speaker 3: world's biggest investment fund says the war in Ukraine has put an And to globalization as we know it. Larry Fink is the chief executive of BlackRock. Countries and businesses are cutting ties with Russia. They're also imposing sanctions against the country, including cutting off its central bank from its foreign reserves, Fink predicts that with Russia's decoupling from the world, Governments and companies will reevaluate their supply chains and even consider reconsider the dependency in other nations.
Speaker 4: See, the truth is slowly gonna come out about what's really going on. And what's really going on is this. The Ukraine has been the center of Of the globalists for decades decades decades, 70 years at least, CIA, which is not a good organization, They're they're the the implementers of deep state, let's say. They've been working this in the Ukraine for 70 years, building up a resistance to everybody and everything. Why?
Because because they needed to bring the Soviet Union down, but they also want the resources that are in the Ukraine. That's what this is all about. Particularly Eastern Ukraine, massive natural resources The CIA goes in, gets control of an American business interest, and they're not business. They're just robber barons. They're not legitimate businessmen.
They just wanna steal, and that's what goes on. And so they're taking that away from from the from Russia and the Ukraine. And on top of that, it's the center of the deep state. And so by Vlad Putin going in, he's cutting the head off the snake. Once the head comes off, the whole beast will die.
So that's what's actually going on, folks. So please, They are gonna tell you their stories about, possible nuclear war and Vlad's a bad man. This is the war with Russia that they wanted with Hillary Clinton as president because she lost The whole war against Russia was postponed. This is the plan they always had.
Speaker 5: This has been in the works going back to at least 2015, 2016. It was somewhat set back by the election of Donald Trump in the United States because Trump was not a globalist, but he was opposed to many of these schemes. What we're seeing now is a merger of the great reset, the green new deal, The policies on on COVID and a number of other aspects of of government policy, which is being directed not on behalf of sovereign governments, But against sovereign governments. And this is why we're seeing the situation in Ukraine. And what is Russia's crime?
Putin has asked for 20 years for security guarantees for Russia, and these guarantees include No further eastward expansion of NATO, which was promised to Gorbachev in 1990, which was promised again to Yeltsin in 1994, And yet NATO keeps moving to the very borders of Russia. Now they're talking about, as Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, did at the Munich Security Conference, That Ukraine has a right to develop nuclear weapons. And for Putin, Russia's security is directly threatened by 2 aspects u the Ukraine situation, the corruption which includes prominent Nazis in positions of the defense and security forces of Ukraine, The European Union actually acknowledged in 2018 that the defense and security forces of Ukraine were heavily infiltrated by Neo Nazis marching behind the banners of the Ukrainian SS, which joined Hitler in the 19 forties. And when Putin said you need u Vacation of Ukraine, he was called crazy. But the idea of a government, corrupt government being used not To defend the Ukrainian people's freedom and sovereignty.
And I hate to see what's being done to the people of Ukraine right now in this war, But they are the cannon fodder for a NATO and US and British drive to bring down Russia and China. Why? Because they're the 2 leading powers in the world that oppose giving up sovereignty to this Green New Deal and the Great Reset.
Speaker 6: I I don't have too many remedies. The the remedies have to be discussed through dialogue by the stakeholders of our global system, But, I just see the need for such a dialogue, and I see the need for action. I see the need for a great reset.
Speaker 7: To what extent would a reset be brought about by a change in the White House, the election of Joe Biden, for instance?
Speaker 6: I don't know. We first, we shouldn't speculate about the outcome of the election. We will see, beginning of November and Sunday, we we can in any case, we can, and so it's a World Economic Forum, is a very open and as a open platform to integrate everybody who is willing To address those issues in a spirit, which means, to exercise here, true global citizenship.
@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.
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
Let us not forget about the Russian 🇷🇺 Ukraine 🇺🇦 NATO War happening that may lead to WWIII as the globalist want….. For those still thirsty for knowledge, RFK explains a little history that you will NEVER hear in mainstream news cause mainstream news is state media news. 📰 https://t.co/ZkpRIwwKhI
Video Transcript AI Summary
Putin wants peace talks, but Zelensky refuses due to historical tensions. NATO's eastward expansion angers Russia, leading to conflict in Crimea. Zelensky, elected on promises of peace, faces pressure to abandon peace agreements. Russian troops enter Ukraine to push for negotiations, but Biden's interference leads to more casualties. The situation is dire, with Ukraine suffering heavy losses and international perception turning against the US.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, Putin every day says, I wanna settle the war. Let's negotiate. And Zelensky has said, we're not gonna negotiate. But Zelensky didn't start that way. I don't wanna, you know, belabor the history, but Russia was invaded three times through Ukraine.
The last time Hitler killed 1 out of every 7 Russians. They don't want to have Ukraine join NATO. So when the wall came down in the Soviet Union Europe, Gorbachev destroyed himself politically by doing something that was very, very courageous. He went to Bush, and he said, I'm going to allow you to reunify Germany under a NATO army. I'm gonna remove 450,000 Soviet troops, but I want your commitment.
After that, you will not move NATO 1 inch to the east, and we've solemnly swore we wouldn't do it. Well, then in 97, to be Brzezinski was the first of the neocons said, we're gonna move NATO a 1000 miles to the east and take 15 countries into it and surround the Soviet Union. So then we not only move it into 14 new nations, but we unilaterally walk away from our our 2 nuclear weapons treaties with the Russians. And we put Aegis missile systems in Romania and Poland 12 minutes from Moscow. When Russians did that to Cuba in 62, we came this close to nuclear war until they removed them.
So the Russians don't want nukes 400 miles from Moscow. We then overthrow the Ukraine government. In 2014, they're elected government and put in a western sympathetic government. Russia then has to go into Crimea because they have a port. It's their only warm water port, and they know the new government that we just installed is gonna invite the US Navy into their port.
So Russia then went into Crimea without firing a shot because the people of Crimea are Russian. Then the new Ukrainian government we installed started killing ethnic Russians in and they voted to leave and join Russia. Putin said, I don't want them. Let's give them protection and give them semi autonomy and make an agreement to keep NATO out of Ukraine. That treaty was written by Germany, France, Russia, and England, the Minsk of course.
And the Ukrainian parliament, which is controlled by ultra writers, and that's a nice way of of talking about them, refused to sign it. Zelensky runs in 2019. He's He's an actor. Why did he get elected with 70% of the vote? Because he promised to sign the Minsk Accords.
He promised peace. He gets in there, and he pivots. Nobody can explain why, but we know why. Because he was threatened with death by arthritis in his government and a withdrawal of support by the United States by Victoria Nuland, who's leading the economy state department. We told him he could not sign it.
So then the Russians go in. They don't send a big army. They only send 40,000 people. It's a nation of 44,000,000 people. They clearly do not intend to conquer Ukraine, but they want us back at the negotiating table.
We won't allow Zelensky to go back, so he goes to Israel and Turkey and says, will you please help me negotiate a treaty? The Russians just want a guarantee that Ukraine won't join NATO. Zelensky signs a treaty. Putin's people sign the treaty, and Putin starts withdrawing the Russian troops in good faith. And what happens, Joe Biden sends Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, over to Ukraine in April and forced him to tear up the treaty.
And since then, 450,000 kids have died who none of them should have died. For every one Russian that dies, 5 to 8 Ukrainians died, they don't have any men left. You know, we're giving them all these weapons, but they don't have men left. It's a catastrophe, and we look kinda like like the aggressor. That's the way the rest of the world sees
@JohnnyAkzam - Johnny Akzam
Jeffery Sachs thoroughly educates Piers Morgan on the Ukrainian conflict. https://t.co/2FUyx1Pa2I
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues against accepting a one-sided view of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, citing the US's history of interventionism. They claim the US illegally bombed Belgrade, initiated wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and illegally bombed Libya. They allege the US overthrew Yanukovych in Kyiv in 2014, despite an EU-brokered agreement for early elections.
The speaker states that Russia initially sought peace through negotiations, resulting in the Minsk II agreement, which was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. However, they claim the US government dismissed Minsk II, and Angela Merkel admitted it was a ploy to strengthen Ukraine. The speaker distrusts the US government and advocates for a transparent agreement between Russia and Ukraine, with both sides committing to non-intervention and NATO non-enlargement, to be witnessed by the world.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You seem very reliant on accepting Putin's world view rather than perhaps the stark reality of the barbarism with which he's executed this war.
Speaker 1: Yeah. May maybe because I know too much about The United States, because the first war in Europe after World War two was The US bombing of Belgrade for seventy eight days to change borders of a European state. The idea was to break Serbia, to create Kosovo as an enclave, and then to install Banda Steel, which is the largest NATO base in the Balkans, in the Southwest Balkans. So The US started this under Clinton, that we will break the borders, we will illegally bomb another country. We didn't have any UN authority.
This was a NATO mission to do that. Then I know The United States went to war repeatedly, illegally, in what it did in Afghanistan, and then what it did in Iraq, and then what it did in Syria, which was the Obama administration, especially Obama and Hillary Clinton, tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad, and then what it did with NATO illegally bombing Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and then what it did in Kyiv in February 2014. I happened to see some of that with my own eyes. The U. S.
Overthrew Yanukovych together with right wing Ukrainian military forces. We overthrew a president. And what's interesting, by the way, is we overthrew Yanukovych the day after the European Union representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych to have early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand down of both sides. That was agreed. The next thing that happens is the opposition, quote unquote, says, We don't agree.
They stormed the government buildings, and they deposed Yanukovych, and within hours The United States says, Yes, we support the new government. It didn't say, Oh, we had an agreement. That's unconstitutional, what you did. So we overthrew a government, contrary to a promise that the European Union had made. And by the way, Russia, The United States, and the EU were parties to that agreement.
And The United States, an hour afterwards, backed the coup. Okay, so everyone's got a little bit to answer for. In 2015, the Russians did not say, we want the Donbas back. They said peace should come through negotiations. And negotiations between the ethnic Russians in the East Of Ukraine and this new regime in Kyiv led to the Minsk two agreement.
The Minsk two agreement was voted by the UN Security Council unanimously. It was signed by the government of Ukraine. It was guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. And you know what? And it's been explained to me in person.
It was laughed at inside the US government. This is after the UN Security Council unanimously accepted it. The Ukrainians said, we don't want to give autonomy to the region. Oh, but that's part of the treaty. The US told them, don't worry about it.
Angela Merkel explained in desight in a notorious interview after the twenty twenty two escalation, she said, Oh, you know, we knew that Minsk II was just a holding pattern to give Ukraine time to build its strength. No. Minsk II was a UN Security Council unanimously adopted treaty that was supposed to end the war. So when it comes to who's trustworthy, who to believe, and so forth, I guess my problem, Peers, is I know the United States government. I know it very well.
Don't trust them for a moment. I want these two sides actually to sit down in front of the whole world and say, These are the terms. Then the world can judge, because we could get on paper clearly for both sides of the world. We're not going to overthrow governments anymore, the United States needs to say. We accept this agreement, the United States needs to say.
Russia needs to say. We're not stepping one foot farther than whatever the boundary is actually reached. And NATO's not going to enlarge. And let's put it for the whole world to see. You know, once in a while, treaties actually hold.
@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones
RFK JR. Devastates Military Industrial Complex By Explaining True Reasons Behind Russia / Ukraine War https://t.co/wLDVeOuKtE
@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.
@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons
@elonmusk Robert F. Kennedy also did an excellent job of summarizing the lead-up to the war in Ukraine here as well: https://t.co/kd0sJ5Bj48
Video Transcript AI Summary
Putin claims he wants to negotiate the war, but Zelensky refuses. Historically, Russia has faced invasions through Ukraine, including by Hitler. After the Soviet Union's fall, Gorbachev allowed German reunification under NATO, seeking a promise not to expand NATO eastward. However, NATO expanded into 14 countries, and the U.S. withdrew from nuclear treaties, placing missiles near Russia. In 2014, the U.S. supported a government change in Ukraine, prompting Russia's annexation of Crimea. Zelensky, initially promising peace, faced pressure from the U.S. and couldn't sign the Minsk Accords. Russia's limited military presence aimed to negotiate, but U.S. intervention led to the treaty's collapse. This has resulted in significant casualties, with the perception of the U.S. as the aggressor growing globally.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, Putin every day says, I wanna settle the war. Let's negotiate. And Zelensky has said, we're not gonna negotiate. But Zelensky didn't start that way. I don't wanna, you know, delay the history, but Russia was invaded 3 times through Ukraine.
The last time Hitler killed 1 out of every 7 Russians. They don't want to have Ukraine join NATO. So when the wall came down in the Soviet Union Europe, Gorbachev destroyed himself politically by doing something that was very, very courageous. He went to Bush, and he said, I'm going to allow you to reunify Germany under a NATO army. I'm gonna remove 450,000 Soviet troops, but I want your commitment.
After that, you will not move NATO 1 inch to the east, and we've solemnly swore we wouldn't do it. Well, then in 97, Brzezinski was the first of the neocons said, we're gonna move NATO a 1000 miles to the east and take 15 countries into it and surround the Soviet Union. So then we not only move it into 14 new nations, but we unilaterally walk away from our 2 nuclear weapons treaties with the Russians. And we put Aegis missile systems in Romania and Poland 12 minutes from Moscow. When Russians did that to Cuba in 62, we came this close to nuclear war until they removed them.
So the Russians don't want nukes 400 miles from Moscow. We then overthrow the Ukraine government. In 2014, they're elected government and put in a western sympathetic government. Russia then has to go into Crimea because they have a port. It's their only warm water port, and they know the new government that we just installed is gonna invite the US Navy into their port.
So Russia then went into Crimea without firing a shot because the people of Crimea are Russian. Then the new Ukrainian government we installed started killing ethnic Russians in and they voted to leave and join Russia. Putin said, I don't want them. Let's give them protection and give them semi autonomy and make an agreement to keep NATO out of Ukraine. That treaty was written by Germany, France, Russia, and England, the Minsk Accords.
And the Ukrainian parliament, which is controlled by ultra writers, and that's a nice way of of talking about them, refused to sign it. Zelensky runs in 2019. He's an actor. Why did he get elected with 70% of vote? Because he promised to sign the Minsk Accords.
He promised peace. He gets in there, and he pivots. Nobody can explain why, but we know why. Because he was threatened with death by arthritis in his government and a withdrawal of support by the United States by Victoria Newan, who's the leading the economy state department. We told him he could not sign it.
So then the Russians go in. They don't send a big army. They only send 40,000 people. It's a nation of 44,000,000 people. They clearly do not intend to conquer Ukraine, but they want us back at the negotiating table.
We won't allow Zelensky to go back. So he goes to Israel and Turkey and says, will you please help me negotiate a treaty? The Russians just want I guarantee that Ukraine won't join NATO. Zelensky signs the treaty. Putin's people sign the treaty, and Putin starts withdrawing the Russian troops in good faith.
And what happens, Joe Biden sends Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, over to Ukraine in April and forces him to tear up the treaty. And since then, 450,000 kids have died who none of them should have died. For every one Russian that dies, 5 to 8 Ukrainians died, they don't have any men left. You know, we're giving them all these weapons, but they don't have men left. It's a catastrophe, and we look kinda like the aggressor.
That's the way the rest of the world sees us.
@BGatesIsaPyscho - Concerned Citizen
“It’s a war that should never have happened” “Billions of dollars aren’t going to Ukraine - it’s going to Blackrock” Legacy Media have lied about the Ukrainian conflict from day 1 - listen to RFK Jnr tell the truth about it https://t.co/1Wrk2reksn
Video Transcript AI Summary
This war should never have happened. Russia sought terms favorable to Ukraine, primarily to keep NATO out. Military contractors benefit from NATO expansion, ensuring a market for their weapons. Since March 2022, the U.S. has committed over $113 billion to Ukraine, with more requested, while the real beneficiaries are American defense manufacturers. Mitch McConnell suggested this funding is a money laundering scheme, with BlackRock owning many of these companies. Loans to Ukraine come with harsh conditions, including austerity and the sale of government assets, particularly valuable agricultural land. Despite the sacrifices of Ukrainians, 30% of this land has already been sold to companies like DuPont and Cargill, also linked to BlackRock. The rebuilding contracts for Ukraine have gone to BlackRock, revealing a strategy to maintain divisions among us while profiting from the conflict.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is 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 want to add new countries to NATO all the time. Why?
Because then that country has to conform its military purchases to NATO weapon specifications, which means certain companies, North Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics Boeing, and Lockheed 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. But the big, big expenses are gonna come after the war when we have to rebuild you all the things that we destroyed.
Mitch McConnell was asked, and we really afford to send 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? BlackRock. 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?
Because if they call it a loan, they can impose loan conditions. And what are the loan conditions that we impose on? Number 1, a extreme austerity program so that if you're poor in Ukraine, you're gonna be poor forever. Number 2, most important, Ukraine has to 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 gave out the contract to rebuild Ukraine. And who do you think got that contract? BlackRock. So they're doing this right in front of us.
They don't even care that we know anymore because they know 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 sell.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
New US Secretary of Health and Human Services RFK Jr. Reveals the Real Reasons Behind the Ukraine Conflict https://t.co/pmCOmTVR39
Video Transcript AI Summary
The war is fundamentally about security for Russia, not territory. Since 1992, Russia has consistently opposed NATO's expansion into Ukraine due to historical invasions. Promises made during the dissolution of the Soviet Union to not move NATO eastward have been broken, leading to tensions. In 2014, the U.S. supported the overthrow of Ukraine's elected government, which invited NATO, prompting a Russian response. Attempts at peace, including the Minsk Accords and a 2022 agreement between Zelensky and Putin, were undermined by external pressures. The ongoing conflict has resulted in significant casualties, and the U.S. has spent substantial resources that could be better used domestically. Trump aims to negotiate a resolution, as he prefers deals over conflict. Russia's fears of a NATO-supported invasion have been validated, complicating the situation further.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The war really was about security, it wasn't about territory for the Russians. And what they, you know the Russians for 30 years since 1992 have been saying you cannot put NATO in Ukraine. Because the Russians been invaded 3 times through Ukraine, the last time when Hitler invaded them, he killed 1 out of every 7 Russians. So they're they have a legitimate security concern also. We walked away from in the last, 6 years from 2 nuclear weapons, missile treaties, the 2 intermediate nuclear treaties that prevented us prior to that from putting missiles in Europe that could hit Moscow.
So then we we, you know, when let me go back a little. In 1992, when the Soviets disbanded the Soviet Union, when Gorbachev disbanded it, He allowed us to unite Germany under East and West Germany under a NATO army. They moved out the Russian army, the Red Army 450,000 troops and and but the one promise he extracted, he said, you have to promise me that you will not move NATO to the East. We, James Baker, President Bush, John Major all said in England all said, we will not move it 1 inch to the east famously. And since then we've moved it a 1000 miles to the east and into 14 countries.
And the one thing they said is you can't put it in Ukraine. And that's what precipitated to this war. We went in there in 2014, we overthrew the government, the elected government of Ukraine. Put in a government that would invite NATO and then the Russians, responded. And and the Russians asked for a peace treaty, we negotiated 1 France, Germany negotiated the Minsk Accords.
And then we double crossed the Russians and wouldn't sign it. And then in April of 2022, the Zelensky negotiated another agreement and initialed it with Putin. And Putin was withdrawing his troops and president Biden sent Boris Johnson, the former prime minister of England to Kiev to force the Lenski to tear up that agreement. And since then, 600,000 kids have died. And they if that agreement had just if they just left it alone, Donbas and Lukas would still be part of Ukraine and all of those mineral wealth and, you know, and, and we wanted the war.
And, you know, we've spent $200,000,000,000 which by the way, we need in this country. You know, we've got a lot of desperate people in this country now. And we can't be afford, you know, we can't afford to to, to be engaged in wars that are are this close to nuclear engagement.
Speaker 1: And so Trump is, is going to, work on that with you. I mean, that was one of the things that you united. Yeah. Right?
Speaker 0: And and but he said from the beginning, I'll settle this in in whatever you say about president Trump is a real estate guy and he'd rather do a deal than have a war. Mhmm. Yeah. And you know, and and then Russia I mean, it's harder now to to do a good deal because the Russians have made a profound sacrifice and they're, you know, now Putin said from the beginning, I'm scared they're gonna use Ukraine to attack Russia. So now Zelensky has confirmed that by sending NATO a NATO supported invasion of Russia through to in Kurds.
And everything the Russians were saying about this from the beginning has turned out to be true.
@SMO_VZ - 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐙
In 3 minutes, even the BLIND, Deaf & DUMB can clearly see that the PROPAGANDA that was propagated by Western Media for the warmongers In NATO & the Military industrial Complex was always about dragging RUSSIA into a War & defeating them via any means necessary.. TRUTH https://t.co/Z5Dr5RhaN6
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Putin sent a draft treaty to NATO, demanding a promise not to expand further, which was a precondition for avoiding war in Ukraine. NATO enlargement is not the true issue; the conflict is fundamentally about democracy and Putin's desire to rebuild a Soviet-like empire. Ukraine's actions, such as banning political parties and restricting freedoms, highlight the struggle for democratic values. The narrative surrounding NATO is a distraction, as Putin's aggression resembles historical tyrants like Hitler. The situation reflects a broader ambition for power rather than a direct response to NATO's presence. Negotiating with such a leader poses significant challenges, as history shows that appeasement often fails.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Putin actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what what he sent us. And that was that that was a precondition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO across his borders.
Flashback. This is fundamentally not about NATO expansion.
Speaker 1: It's never about NATO enlargement. It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO expanding toward Russia.
Speaker 2: This was never about NATO.
Speaker 1: Absolutely nothing to do with NATO expansionism.
Speaker 2: And it has nothing to do with NATO. This is not about NATO. It's not really about NATO.
Speaker 1: This is not about NATO.
Speaker 2: Seriously, it's not about NATO. This was never about NATO.
Speaker 1: It was never about NATO.
Speaker 2: Let's be honest. This doesn't have anything to do
Speaker 1: with NATO?
Speaker 2: Nothing to do with NATO at all. Yeah. He's claiming it's, like, security purposes, but we can see the clear reason.
Speaker 0: But NATO is not the reason.
Speaker 1: This is not about NATO expansion.
Speaker 2: This is about the democratic expansion.
Speaker 1: Ukraine bans religious organizations. We are protecting democracy right now. Ukraine is banning political parties. Because it's a democracy. Ukraine restricts books and music.
It's about democracy. Ukraine won't hold elections. It's about democracy.
Speaker 2: It's not about NATO expansion.
Speaker 3: This war in Ukraine
Speaker 2: is not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with NATO. Nothing to do with NATO expansion.
Speaker 3: It's not about NATO expansion.
Speaker 2: Nothing to do with with NATO. It isn't really about NATO.
Speaker 1: It's not about NATO.
Speaker 2: It's not about NATO enlargement.
Speaker 1: In fact, it has nothing to do with NATO. It's not about NATO encroachment. It's not about NATO encroachment. It's not about NATO encroachment. It's not about NATO.
NATO is just
Speaker 2: as a fictious imaginary adversary for
Speaker 1: for for mister Putin and for Russia. It was never about NATO.
Speaker 2: That's not what it's been about. It's been about him trying to
Speaker 3: expand Hang on. I mean, the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, Russia has wished for a sphere of influence. Over if the west had not challenged Russian interests so directly, I think that there there was a chance to avoid this war.
Speaker 0: He wanted us to sign the promise never to enlarge NATO. We rejected that.
Speaker 1: The reason why Putin invaded Ukraine is because of his evil Evil.
Speaker 0: It's about that Putin wants to rebuild Soviet empire of evil like president Reagan told.
Speaker 1: It's about Putin being sick.
Speaker 3: I don't
Speaker 1: know how you negotiate peace with a madman,
Speaker 2: but nobody negotiated with Hitler.
Speaker 1: People were comparing him to Hitler.
Speaker 2: To Hitler. Remember Hitler?
Speaker 1: He's a Hitler. We're back when the Nazis invaded Poland. This is exactly the same what Hitler was doing to choose.
Speaker 2: This is the same. Putin will not stop.
Speaker 1: Putin is reminiscent of Hitler. Hitler. This reminds me of Hitler. Hitler. Hitler.
He's the new Hitler.
Speaker 2: Well, Hitler
Speaker 1: This is about a butcher trying to kill people everywhere in the world, just not Ukraine, Syria, all over the place. I hear you. Senator Lindsey Graham, always great to talk to you. Thanks so much. Thank you.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Братья Донбасса обратились к России за помощью, и было принято решение о проведении специальной военной операции.
Brothers from Donbass appealed to Russia for assistance, leading to the decision to conduct a special military operation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Братья Донбасса обратились к России с просьбой о помощи. Мы приняли решение о ходе проведения специальной военной операции.
reSee.it AI Summary
I just learned from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that Biden allegedly blocked a peace deal in Ukraine back in April 2022. He claims Biden sent Boris Johnson to pressure Zelensky into abandoning an already agreed-upon deal with Russia. This raises serious questions about the motives behind the war—suggesting that Biden and NATO preferred conflict over peace. The narrative implies that the ongoing flow of weapons and financial support was aimed at regime change in Russia, rather than defending democracy. How many more revelations will it take for people to see the truth?
@JimFergusonUK - Jim Ferguson
🚨 RFK JR. DROPS BOMBSHELL—BIDEN BLOCKED UKRAINE PEACE DEAL IN 2022! 🚨 🔴 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has just EXPOSED the truth about the war in Ukraine: The conflict could have ended in April 2022, but Biden STOPPED IT! 🔴 According to RFK Jr., Joe Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to FORCE Zelensky to tear up a peace deal that had ALREADY been agreed upon with Russia. 🔥 Think about that—peace was within reach, but the war machine needed it to continue! 🔥 📢 WHAT THIS MEANS: ⚠️ Biden and NATO wanted war, not peace. ⚠️ The endless flow of weapons and billions in taxpayer money was ALWAYS the goal. ⚠️ Millions of lives have been destroyed because Washington wanted regime change in Russia! 💥 How many MORE revelations need to come out before people realize this war was NEVER about “defending democracy”?! 💥 🚨 Will Biden and his war-hungry globalists be held accountable for prolonging this war? 🚨
Video Transcript AI Summary
In April 2022, Biden dispatched Johnson to Ukraine to pressure Zelensky into abandoning a peace agreement with Russia. This agreement, which would have kept Donbas and Lugansk within Ukraine, was reached as Russia began withdrawing troops. Simultaneously, Biden declared his aim was regime change in Russia, while Defense Secretary Austin stated the U.S. sought to exhaust the Russian army. These objectives diverge significantly from the stated goal of protecting Ukraine's sovereignty.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In April 2022, president Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to force president Zelensky to tear up a peace agreement that he and the Russians had already signed, and the Russians were withdrawing troops on Kyiv and Donbas and Lugansk. And that peace agreement would have brought peace to the region and would have allowed Donbas and Lugansk to remain part of Ukraine. President Biden stated that month that this object that his objective in the war was regime change in Russia. His defense secretary Lloyd Austin simultaneously explained that America's purpose in the war was to exhaust the Russian army to degrade its capacity to fight anywhere else in the world. These objectives, of course, have nothing to do with what they were telling Americans about protecting Ukraine's sovereignty.
@blackhawkce457 - J Hans
RFK Jr does a fantastic job in breaking down the Ukraine conflict. Have a listen @RobertKennedyJr https://t.co/LvFVQpRvlS
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ukraine has been a path of invasion into Russia. To avoid this, Gorbachev agreed to allow Germany to reunify under NATO, but only if NATO didn't expand eastward. Despite this agreement, NATO expanded, and the US withdrew from nuclear weapons treaties, placing missile systems near Moscow.
In 2014, the US allegedly overthrew Ukraine's government, leading Russia to annex Crimea to protect its naval base. When the new Ukrainian government attacked ethnic Russians, Russia intervened to protect them.
Zelenskyy was elected on a promise of peace by signing the Minsk Accords, but he refused to sign the agreement. Russia intervened, seeking negotiations to keep Ukraine out of NATO. A treaty was drafted, but allegedly, Joe Biden sent Boris Johnson to force Ukraine to abandon it. The result has been a catastrophic loss of life, with the world viewing the US as the aggressor.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was invaded three times through Ukraine. The last time, Hitler killed one out of every seven Russians. They don't want to have Ukraine join NATO. So when the wall came down in the Soviet Union Europe, Gorbachev destroyed himself politically by doing something that was very, very courageous. He went to Bush.
He said, I'm going to allow you to reunify Germany under a NATO army. I'm gonna remove 450,000 Soviet troops, but I want your commitment. After that, you will not move NATO one inch to the east, and we've solemnly swore we wouldn't do it. Well, then in '97, Przybyl Brudzinski was the first of the neocon said, we're gonna move NATO a thousand miles to the east and take 15 countries into it and surround the Soviet Union. So then we not only move it into 14 new nations, but we unilaterally walk away from our two nuclear weapons treaties with the Russians.
And we put Aegis missile systems in Romania and Poland Twelve Minutes from Moscow. When Russians did that to Cuba in '62, we came this close to nuclear war until they removed them. So the Russians don't want nukes 400 miles from Moscow. We then overthrow the Ukraine government. In 2014, they're elected government and put in a western sympathetic government.
Russia then has to go into Crimea because they have a port. It's their only warm water port, and they know the new government that we just installed is gonna invite the US Navy into their port. So Russia then went into Crimea without firing a shot because the people of Crimea are Russian. Then the new Ukrainian government we installed started killing ethnic Russians in Donbas and Lugans, and they voted to leave and join Russia. Putin said, I don't want them.
Let's give them protection and give them semi autonomy and make an agreement to keep NATO out of Ukraine. That treaty was written by Germany, France, Russia, and England, the Minsk Accords. And the Ukrainian parliament, which is controlled by ultra rightists, and that's a nice way of of talking about them, refused to sign it. Zelenskyy runs in 2019. He's an actor.
Why did he get elected? With 70% of the vote, because he promised to sign the Minsk Accords. He promised peace. He gets in there, and he pivots. Nobody can explain why, but we know why.
Because he was threatened with death by ultra rightists in his government and a withdrawal of support by The United States by Victoria Nguyen, who's the leading the economy state department. We told them he could not sign. So then the Russians go in. They don't send a big army. They only send 40,000 people.
It's a nation of 44,000,000 people. They clearly do not intend to conquer Ukraine, but they want us back at the negotiating table. We won't allow Zelensky to go back. So he goes to Israel and Turkey and says, will you please help me negotiate a treaty? The Russians just want a guarantee that Ukraine won't join NATO.
Zelensky signs a treaty. Putin's people signed the treaty, and Putin starts withdrawing the Russian troops in good faith. And what happens? Joe Biden sends Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, over to Ukraine in April and forces him to tear up the treaty. And since then, 450,000 kids have died who none of them should have died.
For every one Russian that dies, five to eight Ukrainians died, they don't have any men left. You know, we're giving them all these weapons, but they don't have men left. It's catastrophe, and we look kinda like the aggressor. That's the way the rest of the world sees us.
@DefiyantlyFree - Insurrection Barbie
RFK Jr. provides his take on the Russia/Ukraine war. https://t.co/RvtTa4uQ5c
Video Transcript AI Summary
My son fought in Ukraine because he saw Putin as a bully. This war is about Russia's security, not territory. Since 1992, they've opposed NATO in Ukraine due to historical invasions. They feel threatened because NATO has expanded eastward despite promises otherwise.
We overthrew Ukraine's government in 2014, prompting Russian response. A peace treaty was negotiated but then disregarded. Boris Johnson stopped Zelensky from finalizing another agreement with Putin, leading to many deaths. We wanted the war, spending money that could be used at home.
Trump, a dealmaker, aims to resolve this. Putin feared Ukraine attacking Russia, which Zelensky seemingly confirmed. The Afghan withdrawal was a calamity due to political timelines. We should have withdrawn troops responsibly.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Son Connor went over to Ukraine and fought over there, and he fought the Kharkiv offensive because, you know, he he he looked at Putin as a bully who had invaded this country. The war really was about security. It wasn't about territory for the Russians. And what they you know, the Russians for thirty years since 1992 have been saying you cannot put NATO in Ukraine because the Russians been invaded three three times through Ukraine. The last time when Hitler invaded them, he killed one out of every seven Russians.
So they're they have a legitimate security concern. Also, we walked away from in the last six years from two nuclear weapons missile treaties and two intermediate nuclear treaties that prevented us prior to that from putting missiles in Europe that could hit Moscow. So then we we you know when Let me go back a little. In 1992 when the Soviets disbanded the Soviet Union, when Gorbachev disbanded it, He allowed us to unite Germany under East And West Germany under a NATO army. They moved out the Russian army, the Red Army, four hundred and fifty thousand troops and and But the one promise he extracted, he said, you you have to promise me that you will not move NATO to the East.
We James Baker, president Bush, John Major, all said in England, all said we will not move it one inch to the East famously. And since then, we've moved it a thousand miles to the east and into 14 countries. And the one thing they said is you can't put it in Ukraine. And that's what precipitated this war. We went in there in 2014.
We overthrew the government, the elected government of Ukraine, put in a government that would invite NATO in and the Russians responded. And then the Russians asked for a peace treaty. We negotiated one. France, Germany negotiated the Minsk Accords, And then we double crossed the Russians and wouldn't sign it. And then in April of twenty twenty two, the Zelensky negotiated another agreement and initialed it with Putin.
And Putin was withdrawing his troops and president Biden sent Boris Johnson, the former prime minister of England to Kiev to force Zelensky to tear up that agreement and since then six hundred thousand kids have died. And they if that agreement had just if they just left it alone, Donbas and Lugans would still be part of Ukraine and all of those mineral wealth and, you know, and and we wanted the war. And, you know, we've spent $200,000,000,000, which by the way, we need in this country. You know, we've got a lot of desperate people in this country now. And we can't be afford you know, we can't afford to to to be engaged in wars that are are this close to nuclear engagement.
Speaker 1: And so Trump is is going to work on that with you. Mean, that was one of the things that you united. Right?
Speaker 0: And and but he said from the beginning, all settled as you say about president Trump, he's a real estate guy and he'd rather do a deal than have a war. Mhmm. Yeah. And, you know, and and the Russia I mean, it's harder now to to do a good deal because the Russians have made a profound sacrifice, and they're you know, now, Putin said from the beginning, I'm scared they're gonna use Ukraine to attack Russia. So now Zelensky has confirmed that by sending NATO a NATO supported invasion of Russia through to in Kurz.
And everything the Russians were saying about this from the beginning has turned out to be true. And so, you know, we we need to settle that war, and we need to start we need to start building a, you know, a community and a society. The Afghan withdrawal, your thoughts on that? The Afghan withdrawal was was a horrible calamity because it was it could have been done correctly. We should have taken the troops out of Afghanistan.
You could do that in a way that was, you know, that it was politically driven by a a date that was impossible for the army to comply with, for the military to comply with.
@RWMaloneMD - Robert W Malone, MD
Last year, Jeffrey Sachs delivered a most important history lesson at the European Union. This is why Ukraine is at war. Ask yourself, who actually is the aggressor in this conflict? https://t.co/8dPkv1EC5b
Video Transcript AI Summary
Putin's intention in the war was to keep NATO, meaning the United States, off Russia's border. After the Soviet Union ended in 1991, NATO agreed not to move eastward, but the US later decided to enlarge NATO eastward to Ukraine and Georgia. Despite Russia's unhappiness, NATO enlargement continued.
In 2008, the US pushed for NATO enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia, leading to protests from Russia. The US then installed missile systems in Poland and Romania. In 2014, the US actively worked to overthrow the Russia-leaning Yanukovych government in Ukraine. Later, Ukraine, supported by the US, refused to enforce the Minsk Two agreement, which would have given autonomy to Russian-speaking regions. In 2022, the US asserted its right to place missile systems anywhere, leading to the war. Putin's initial aim was to negotiate Ukraine's neutrality, but Ukraine withdrew from near-agreement due to US influence, furthering the proxy war.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What was Putin's intention in the war? Not the propaganda that's written about this. Oh, that they failed and he was gonna take over Ukraine. The idea was to keep NATO. And what is NATO?
It's The United States off of Russia's border. No more, no less. When the Soviet Union ended in 1991, and an agreement was made that NATO will not move one inch eastward. Now what happened after 1991, the United States decided there would be no end to eastward enlargement of NATO, and the decision was taken formally in 1994 when president Clinton signed off on NATO enlargement to the East, all the way to Ukraine and into Georgia. So the NATO enlargement, as you know, started in 1999 with Hungary, Poland, and The Czech Republic, and Russia was extremely unhappy about it.
But these were countries still far from the border. So the next round of NATO enlargement came in 02/2004 with the three Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Slovakia. At this point, Russia was pretty damn upset. So as everybody recalls, in 02/2007, president Putin said, stop. Enough.
And, of course, what that meant was in 02/2008, the United States jammed down Europe's throat enlargement of NATO Ukraine and to Georgia. This is right up against Russia. And Russia protested because if Russia decided to have a military base on the Rio Grande or the Canadian border, not only would The United States freak out, we'd have war within about ten minutes. And a month later, a war broke out. That gets Georgia destroyed.
And starting in 02/2010, the US put in Aegis missile systems in Poland and then in Romania. And Russia doesn't like that. In 02/2010, Viktor Yanukovych was elected on the platform of neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. What Russia was negotiating was a twenty five year lease for Sevast Opol naval base.
That's it. Not for Crimea, not for the Donbas, nothing. In 02/2014, the US worked actively to overthrow Yanukovych. Everybody knows the phone call by my Columbia University colleague, Victoria Nuland, and The US Ambassador, Peter Piat. Listen to it.
It's fascinating.
Speaker 1: I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's a good idea. I think Yatz is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience, and, you know, fuck the EU.
Speaker 0: No. Exactly. And I think we've gotta do something to make You don't get better evidence. Then came especially Minsk Two. It said there should be autonomy for the Russian speaking regions in the East Of Ukraine.
It was supported unanimously by the UN Security Council. The United States and Ukraine decided it was not to be enforced. There were many thousands of deaths in the shelling by Ukraine in the Donbas. And one of the issues on the table in December 2021, January '20 '20 '2 was does The United States claim the right to put missile systems in Ukraine? And Blinken told Lavrov in January 2022, the United States reserves the right to put missile systems wherever it wants.
So the war started. What was Putin's intention in the war? It was to force Zelensky to negotiate. Neutrality. And that happened within seven days start of the invasion.
Ukraine walked away unilaterally from a near agreement. Why? Because The United States told them to. The idea was that there would be Ukraine, Romania, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia that would deprive Russia of any international status by blocking the Black Sea. And the American senators who are as nasty and cynical and corrupt as imaginable say this is wonderful expenditure of our money because no Americans are dying.
It's the pure proxy war. And since The US talked the negotiators away from the table, about a million Ukrainians have died or been severely
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
The Ukraine - Russian War Was Provoked! PRICELESS - MUST WATCH !!! Explaned by Jeffrey Sachs, David Sacks, John Mearsheimer, Douglas Macgregor, Scott Ritter If you still believe that Russia started this conflict in 2022, then you are either corrupt, ignorant, or brainwashed. https://t.co/PrRbrSnTji
Video Transcript AI Summary
- Democrats' spending caused inflation, and Biden's administration ignited global unrest after a peaceful period under Trump. Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal was botched, and NATO expansion talks provoked Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Opportunities for peace were rejected, leading to a prolonged war with mass casualties and depleted US stockpiles.
- The US has a history of military interventions, including the bombing of Belgrade, and illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, as well as involvement in the 2014 coup in Kyiv. The US government cannot be trusted.
- NATO expansion was promised not to move "one inch eastward" but Clinton signed off on plans to expand NATO to Ukraine. The US unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, leading to missile systems in Eastern Europe that Russia views as a threat.
- Putin sought to force Ukraine to negotiate neutrality, aiming to keep NATO off Russia's border. The US rejected negotiations, and a draft Russia-US security agreement proposing no NATO enlargement.
- Germany has aligned with the US, supporting NATO expansion, but previously had an independent foreign policy. Merkel knew NATO expansion was a bad idea but gave in to US pressure.
- The US is in a hot war with Russia, with US personnel on the ground in Ukraine. Russia could disable critical American infrastructure.
- The war in Ukraine is a US-Russia conflict provoked by the US with the aim of NATO enlargement. The American people have been told the opposite.
- The war started in 2014 with US involvement in the overthrow of Ukraine's government. The US rejected off-ramps and continues to fund the war, resulting in Ukrainian deaths and territorial losses.
- The US should negotiate with Russia, acknowledging mutual security concerns and halting NATO enlargement.
- The US is trying to destroy Russia through CIA operations in Ukraine. Russia is defending its right to survive.
- Globalists aim to exploit Ukraine's resources and destroy Russia. The BRICS nations are moving towards a gold-backed currency.
- The US has invested billions in Ukraine since 1991 to support a democratic government. Zelenskyy's team is adding fuel to the fire.
- The US blew up the Nord Stream pipeline, as promised by Biden.
- The US is turning Ukraine into a de facto member of NATO.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Democrats have recklessly spent trillions of dollars of wasteful and unnecessary government programs, setting off the worst inflation since Jimmy Carter. But worst of all, the Biden Harris administration has taken a world that was at peace under president Trump, and they lit it on fire. First, president Biden botched the Afghanistan withdrawal, displaying incompetence and weakness for the whole world to see. Then he provoked, yes provoked, the Russians to invade Ukraine with talk of NATO expansion. Afterward, he rejected every opportunity for peace in Ukraine, including a deal to end the war just two months after it broke out.
Now the war is deep into its third year with no end in sight. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead. Hundreds of billions of our taxpayer dollars have gone up in smoke. President Biden sold us this new forever war by promising it would weaken Russia and strengthen America. Well, how does that look today?
Russia's military is bigger than before, while our own stockpiles are dangerously depleted. Every day, there are new calls for escalation, and the world looks on in horror as Joe Biden's demented policy takes us to the brink of World War three.
Speaker 1: You seem very reliant on accepting Putin's world view rather than perhaps the stark reality of the barbarism with which he's executed this war.
Speaker 2: Yeah. May maybe because I know too much about The United States, because the first war in Europe after World War two was The US bombing of Belgrade for seventy eight days to change borders of a European state. The idea was to break Serbia, to create Kosovo as an enclave, and then to install Banda Steel, which is the largest NATO base in the Balkans, in the Southwest Balkans. So The US started this under Clinton, that we will break the borders, we will illegally bomb another country, we didn't have any UN authority. This was a, quote, NATO mission to do that.
Then I know The United States went to war repeatedly, illegally, in what it did in Afghanistan, and then what it did in Iraq, and then what it did in Syria, which was the Obama administration, especially Obama and Hillary Clinton, tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad, and then what it did with NATO illegally bombing Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and then what it did in Kyiv in February 2014. I happened to see some of that with my own eyes. The US overthrew Yanukovych together with right wing Ukrainian military forces. We overthrew a president. And what's interesting, by the way, is we overthrew Yanukovych the day after the European Union representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych to have early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand down of both sides.
That was agreed. The next thing that happens is the opposition, quote unquote, says we don't agree. They stormed the government buildings, and they deposed Yanukovych, and within hours The United States says yes, we support the new government. It didn't say, oh, we had an agreement, that's unconstitutional, what you did. So we overthrew a government, contrary to a promise that the European Union had made.
And by the way, Russia, The United States and the EU were parties to that agreement, and The United States An Hour afterwards backed the coup. Okay, so everyone's got a little bit to answer for. In 2015, the Russians did not say, We want the Donbas back. They said peace should come through negotiations. And negotiations between the ethnic Russians in the East Of Ukraine and this new regime in Kyiv led to the Minsk Two agreement.
The Minsk Two agreement was voted by the UN Security Council unanimously. It was signed by the government of Ukraine. It was guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. And you know what? And it's been explained to me in person.
It was laughed at inside the US government. This is after the UN Security Council unanimously accepted it. The Ukrainians said, we don't want to give autonomy to the region. Oh, but that's part of the treaty. The US told them, don't worry about it.
Angela Merkel explained in desight, in a notorious interview, after the 2022 escalation, she said, Oh, you know, we knew that Minsk II was just a holding pattern to give Ukraine time to build its strength. No. Minsk II was a UN Security Council unanimously adopted treaty that was supposed to end the war. So when it comes to who's trustworthy, who to believe, and so forth, I guess my problem, Pierce, is I know the United States government. I know it very well.
Don't trust them for a moment. I want these two sides actually to sit down in front of the whole world and say, these are the terms, then the world can judge, because we could get on paper clearly for both sides of the world. We're not gonna overthrow governments anymore, the United States needs to say. We accept this agreement, the United States needs to say. Russia needs to say we're not stepping one foot farther than whatever the boundary is actually reached, and NATO's not going to enlarge.
And let's put it for the whole world to see. You know, once in a while, treaties actually hold. Let me just explain in two minutes the Ukraine war. This is not an attack by Putin on Ukraine in the way that we are told every day. This started in 1990, February ninth '19 '90.
James Baker the third, our secretary of state, said to Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch eastward if you agree to German unification, basically ending World War two. And, Gorbachev said that's very important. Yes. NATO doesn't move, and we agree to German unification. The US then cheated on this already starting in 1994 when Clinton signed off on a, basically, a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine.
This is when the so called neocons took power, and, Clinton was the first agent of this. And the expansion of NATO started in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic. At that point, Russia didn't much care. There was no border other than with the Konigsberg, but other than that, there was no direct threat. Then, The US, led the bombing of Serbia in 1999.
That was bad, by the way, because that was a use of NATO to bomb a European capital, Belgrade, Seventy Eight Straight Days to break the country apart. The Russians didn't like that very much, but Putin became president. They swallowed it. They complained, but, even Putin started out pro European, pro American actually asked maybe we should join NATO when there was still the idea of some kind of mutually respectful relationship. Then nine eleven came, then came Afghanistan, and the Russians said, yeah, we'll support you.
We understand to root out terror. But then came two other decisive actions. In 02/2002, the United States unilaterally walked out of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. This was probably the most decisive event never discussed in this context, but what it did was trigger The US putting in missile systems in Eastern Europe that Russia views as a dire direct threat to national security by making possible a decapitation strike of missiles that are a few minutes away from Moscow. And we put in two Aegis missile systems.
We say it's defense. Russia says, how do we know it's not Tomahawk nuclear tipped missiles in your silos? You've told us we have nothing to do with this. And so we walked out of the ABM treaty unilaterally in 02/2002, and then in 02/2003, we invaded Iraq on completely phony pretenses as I've explained. In February, 04/05, we engaged in a soft regime change operation in Ukraine, the so called first color revolution.
It put in office somebody that I knew and was I was friends with, and I'm kind of distantly friends with president Yushchenko because I was an adviser to the Ukrainian government in nineteen ninety three, ninety four, ninety five. And then The US had its dirty hands in this. It should not meddle in other countries' elections. But in 02/2009, Yanukovych won the election, and he became president in 02/2010 on the basis of neutrality for Ukraine. That calmed things down because The US was pushing NATO, but the people of Ukraine on the opinion polls didn't even wanna be a NATO.
They knew that the country is divided between ethnic Ukrainian, ethnic Russian. What do we want with this? We wanna stay away from your problems. So in 02/22/2014, the United States participated actively in the overthrow of Yanukovych, a typical US regime change operation. Have no doubt about it.
And the Russians did us a favor. They intercepted a really ugly call between Victoria Nuland, my colleague at Columbia University now. And if you know her name and what she's done, have sympathy for me. Really, between her and The US Ambassador to Ukraine, Jeffrey Pyat, who was a senior state department official till today, and they talked about regime change. They said, who's gonna be the next government?
Ah, why don't we pick this one? No. Klitschko shouldn't go in. It should be Yat senuk. Ah, yes.
It was Yat senuk, and we'll get we'll get the big guy, Biden, to come in and do an attaboy, they say, you know, pat them on the back. It's great. So they made the new government, and I happened to be invited to go there soon after that, not knowing any of the background, and then some of it was, in a very ugly way explained to me after I arrived how The US had participated in this. All of this is to say The US then said, okay, now NATO's really gonna enlarge, and Putin kept saying, stop. You promised no NATO enlargement.
It's been by the way, I forgot to mention in 02/2004, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovia, Slovakia, Slovenia, '7 more countries in the not one inch eastward. And then okay. It's a long story, but The US kept rejecting the basic idea, don't expand NATO to Russia's border in a context where we're putting in goddamn missile systems after breaking a treaty. Twenty nineteen, we walked out of the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty. In 2017, we walked out of the JCPOA, the treaty with Iran.
This is the partner. This is the trust building. In other words, it's completely reckless US foreign policy. On 12/15/2021, Putin put on the table a draft Russia US security agreement. You can find it online.
The basis of it is no NATO enlargement. I called the White House that next week after that, begging them, take the negotiations. Putin's offered something. Avoid this war. Oh, Jeff, there's not gonna be a war.
Announce that NATO's not gonna enlarge. Oh, don't worry. NATO's not gonna enlarge. I said, oh, you're gonna have a war over something that's not gonna happen? Why don't you announce them?
And he said, no. No. Our policy is an open door. This is Jake Sullivan. Our policy is an open door policy.
Open door for NATO enlargement. That is under the category of bullshit, by the way. You don't have your right to put your military bases anywhere you want and expect peace in this world. You have to have some prudence. There's no such thing as an open door that we're gonna be there and we're gonna put our missile systems there and that's our right.
There There's no right to that. We declared in 1823, Europeans don't come to the Western Hemisphere. That's the Monroe Doctrine, the whole Western Hemisphere after all. Okay. Anyway, they turned down the negotiations.
Then the special military operation started, and five days later, Zelensky says, okay. Okay. Neutrality. And then the Turks said, we'll we'll mediate this. And I flew to Ankara to discuss it with the Turkish negotiators because I wanted to hear exactly what was going on.
So what was going on was they reached an agreement with a few odds and ends. And then The United States and Britain said, no way. You guys fight on. We got your back. We don't have your front.
You're all gonna die. But we got your back as we kept pushing them into the front lines. That's six hundred thousand deaths now of Ukrainians since Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell them to be brave. Absolutely ghastly. So when you think about your question, we have to understand we're not dealing with, as we're told every day, with this madman like Hitler coming at us and violating this and violating that, and he's gonna take over Europe.
This is complete bogus, fake history that is a purely PR narrative of the US government, and it doesn't stand up at all to anyone that knows anything, and if you try to say a word of this, I got completely cut out of the New York Times back in 2022 after writing my whole life columns for them. Oh, I'd send this. Okay. And by the way, online, it's not even space. You know, there's no limit.
They could publish 700 words. They would not publish, since then, 700 words for me about what I saw with my own eyes about what this war is about. They won't do it. We're playing games here. So, God forbid, a nuclear power comes at us.
I don't know what's gonna happen, but we came at them, and we should stop going after China and Taiwan. So the war started. What was Putin's intention in the war? I can tell you what his intention was. It was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality.
And that happened within seven days of the start of the invasion. You should understand this, not the propaganda that's written about this. Oh, that they failed and he was gonna take over Ukraine. Come on, ladies and gentlemen. Understand something basic.
The idea was to keep NATO, and what is NATO? It's The United States off of Russia's border. No more, no less. I should add one very important point. Why are they so interested?
First, because if China or Russia decided to have a military base on the Rio Grande or in the Canadian border, not only would The United States freak out, we'd have war within about ten minutes, but because The United States unilaterally abandoned the anti ballistic missile treaty in 02/2002 and ended the nuclear arms control framework by doing so. And this is extremely important to understand. The nuclear arms control framework is based on trying to block a first strike. The ABM treaty was a critical component of that. The US unilaterally walked out of the ABM treaty in 02/2002.
It blew a Russian gasket. So everything I've been describing is in the context of the destruction of the nuclear framework as well. And starting in 02/2010, the US put in Aegis missile systems in Poland and then in Romania. And Russia doesn't like that. And one of the issues on the table in December and January, December '20 '20 '1, January '20 '20 '2, was does The United States claim the right to put missile systems in Ukraine?
And Blinken told Lavrov in January 2022, the United States reserves the right to put middle sis missile systems wherever it wants. That's your putative ally. And now let's put intermediate missile systems back in Germany. The United States walked out of the INF treaty unilaterally in 2019. There is no nuclear arms framework right now.
None. When Zelensky said in seven days, let's negotiate, I know the details of this exquisitely because I've talked to all the parties in detail. Within a couple of weeks, there was a document exchanged that president Putin had approved, that Lavrov had presented, that was being managed by the Turkish mediators. I flew to Ankara to listen in detail to what the mediators were doing. Ukraine walked away unilaterally from a near agreement.
Why? Because The United States told them to. Because The UK added icing to the cake by having Bojo go in early April to Ukraine and explain. And he has recently, and if your security is in the hands of Boris Johnson, God help us all. Keith Starmer turns out to be even worse.
It's unimaginable, but it is true. Boris Johnson has explained, and you can look it up on the website, that what's at stake here is Western hegemony. Not Ukraine, Western hegemony. Michael and I met at the Vatican with a group in the spring of twenty twenty two where we wrote a document explaining nothing good can come out of this war for Ukraine. Negotiate now because anything that takes time will mean massive amounts of deaths, risk of nuclear escalation, and likely loss of the war.
I wanna change one word from what we wrote then. Nothing was wrong in that document. And since that document, since The US talked the negotiators away from the table, about a million Ukrainians have died or been severely wounded. And the American senators who are as nasty and cynical and corrupt as imaginable say this is wonderful expenditure of our money because no Americans are dying. It's the pure proxy war.
One of our senators nearby me, Blumenthal, says this out loud. Mitt Romney says this out loud. It's best money America can spend. No Americans are dying. It's unreal.
Now, just to bring us up to yesterday. This failed. This project failed. The idea of the project was that Russia would fold its hand. The idea all along was Russia can't resist as Zbigniew Brzezinski explained in 1997.
The Americans thought we have the upper hand. We're gonna win because we're gonna bluff them. They're not really gonna fight. They're not really gonna mobilize. The nuclear option of cutting them out of swift, that's gonna do them in.
The economic sanctions, that's gonna do them in. The HIMARS, that's gonna do them in. The ATACMs, the f sixteens. Honestly, I've listened to this for seventy years. I've listened to it as semi understanding, I'd say, for, about fifty six years.
They speak nonsense every day. My country, my government. This is so familiar to me, completely familiar. I begged the Ukrainians, and I had a track record with the Ukrainians. I advised the Ukrainians.
I'm not anti Ukrainian, pro Ukrainian completely. I said save your lives. Save your sovereignty. Save your territory. Be neutral.
Don't listen to the Americans.
Speaker 3: Could you maybe explain that a little further, what role Germany plays in your opinion in the current conflict concerning Ukraine?
Speaker 2: Well, the Germany has been completely aligned with The United States. It's been a kind of, bulwark of The US led policy. The Biden administration was carrying out what I think is fair to say the long term, and I would say deep state policy of The United States, which was to expand NATO eastward, antagonize Russia, try to surround Russia, strategically weaken Russia, and chancellor Scholz was absolutely a part of that, supporting it at every step. And I think it has gotten us into a big mess, frankly.
Speaker 3: Do you think an independent German foreign policy is even possible?
Speaker 2: Of course, it's possible. Germany has had an independent foreign policy in the past, Willy Brant, and Ostpolitik was not a US initiative, it was a German initiative. In 02/2003 when The US stupidly went to war in Iraq, the German government, the chancellor was outspoken. No, that's a bad idea. There have been many occasions where Germany has had its foreign policy at odds with The United States, and what brings us to the current crisis, the war in Ukraine, you can date to 02/2008 in a sense, that was when NATO said we will expand to Ukraine into Georgia.
That was a decision pushed by The United States against the better judgment of European leaders who knew this is reckless, this is provocative, why stir up things in Europe? But The US pushed it, and something decisive happened. Actually, chancellor Merkel has described it in in her memoirs, in her recent book. She describes how at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 02/2008, she and, Sarkozy said to George Bush junior, this is a bad idea. We don't want to provoke Russia.
We don't need to commit to expanding NATO. And The US was dead set on doing it for, basically, deep state reasons, which is, The US is The US. We'll do what we want. We can do what we want. What can Russia do to stop us after all?
We are the most powerful country in the world. That's the mindset.
Speaker 3: But that also the reason? Do you think there's there's no other reasoning behind it? Maybe I don't know. Resources in Ukraine, security reasons, obviously, because they wanna expand NATO. So is it just this this idea where the we're a superpower, and that's why we're just gonna do
Speaker 2: what we're gonna do? That's the overwhelming reason. I don't think you get huge economic returns out of this and so forth. It's it's actually been very costly. But the point I wanted to make is that, chancellor Merkel knew this is a bad idea, and she resisted and resisted, but The US said, no.
No. No. We're gonna do it. And then she gave in. She gave in, in the decision of NATO to announce that Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO.
That's the conclusion of the Bucharest summit. It's sad that she gave in. She knew it was a bad idea. She protested against it, but in the end, she didn't resist The US pressure. I think that was really, unfortunately, a historic bad mistake because if she had stood up to The US pressure, the right outcome would have been achieved.
No such declaration, and we would not have gone on to war. Of course, the war started six years afterwards in 2014 with the violent coup against Yanukovych, but all of that was part of a long term US led process, and had Germany, especially Germany and France and Italy and other major countries of Europe resisted, we would not be where we are today. We would be in a much safer place. There would not be a war in Ukraine. Ukraine would not have lost a million people to death and grievous injury, so we would have been much better off, but The US got its way, and we are where we are because of that.
Speaker 3: What do you think is the difference from 02/2008, the Bucharest summit, to 02/2003 where the German government did resist enjoining the war in Iraq. I mean, it's only five years if you really think about it.
Speaker 2: No fundamental difference. I I think it was a mistake, actually. This is high stakes. People in these positions are consequential. They make decisions that have consequences, and I don't believe that, it was the case that, chancellor Merkel had no choice, that it's inevitable, that The United States had to have its way.
I don't believe that. I think these are decisions that are taken. This one was a bad decision. I believe, by the way, that even as late as 2021, before the escalation with the Russian invasion in February 2022, that invasion could have been avoided, and the reasoning is that Putin put on the table some very specific proposals to avoid that invasion, and The United States refused to negotiate over them. Once again, if at that stage, the German government together with the the French government together with Italy, maybe together with Spain, had said, look, we're at the core of this.
NATO is not The United States. NATO is an alliance. We happen to live right here near Russia, we need a different approach rather than simply provocation. Even then, things could have changed. Of course, things had advanced a long way.
Chancellor Merkel had made another mistake, and it's sad for me to say it, by the way, because I really admired her in many, many ways. I thought she was very serious, very consequent, very responsible, not a flighty person, but a very level headed, very intelligent person, and a very well directed person. But she made another mistake, was that Germany was the guarantor of the Minsk II agreement. The Minsk II agreement was an agreement reached in February 2014 to, 2015, excuse me, a year after the coup, to stop the escalating violence, and it could have done so. It was an agreement in which the breakaway parts of Ukraine, the Donbas region, Donetsk and Lugansk, would have received political autonomy.
Well, it was voted by the UN Security Council, Germany and France were to be the guarantors of this UN backed treaty, and The US and Ukraine blew it off saying we don't like it, it was with a gun to our head, we're not going to accept it, and unfortunately the guarantors of the agreement, Germany and France, went along again with The US, and recently, of course, chancellor Merkel in a pretty infamous interview said, well, it wasn't really an agreement, it was just to buy time. By the way, I don't believe that was her motive back in 2015. I think she really meant it.
Speaker 3: That's interesting because I was gonna say, this is what this is the last information I have it I have about Minsk, that it was just implemented or it wasn't implemented, but they discussed it, negotiated it just to buy time. But you say that back then when they did negotiate it, that you did take it seriously or that they took it seriously, and then later she kind of
Speaker 2: back
Speaker 3: tracked
Speaker 2: on that. I think Mhmm. Later on when it became so unpopular to have any kind of compromise with Putin, she backtracked and said, oh, no. No. No.
It was a little bit of a trick. It wasn't real. But the fact of the matter is it was a good agreement, and it was a real agreement, and I believe she believed in it. And I have reason to know that actually in a kind of surprising way, which is that, in in major ways, the Minsk Two agreement was modeled on the autonomy of the German speaking Alpine region of Italy, Bolzano and South Tyrol.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Zittor.
Speaker 2: Now this is a a German minority region which demanded autonomy after World War two. And at first, there was a kind of pseudo autonomy, but then there was then protests and unrest and then a real autonomy. Now it's a it's a booming happy region. Italy is very happy with it. Everybody likes the arrangements.
Region. And what's interesting is that this was very much on chancellor Merkel's mind, I'm told by people who know, as the model for what should happen in the dawn bus. So I think she really believed in this approach. I believe in it. I don't think it was a a bad agreement.
It was a smart agreement. It would have ended the war. But The United States blew it off because The US is the leaders are stupid. They're they're arrogant. They don't know what they're doing.
They think they can do whatever they want. And so they didn't take it seriously even though it was a UN Security Council, even though President Putin was also a big part of it, even though there was a Normandy process. It was serious, but not to the arrogant Americans. But what's unfortunate is, chancellor Merkel didn't stand up and say, we are the guarantors of this. You, Ukraine, must take it seriously.
Germany went silent. France went silent. And so in a sense, what we've seen since 02/2008 in my interpretation is that the major European countries just bent to The US will. I don't really know why that is. Honest honest to goodness, I don't know why that is.
Speaker 3: You make it sound like you make it sound very human from what you're saying. Like, you're saying American leaders are just stupid. Like, they're arrogant. So this is a very human characteristic to have.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: And then when you talk about, like, mistakes that were made just like Iraq or like Ukraine or not adhering to Minsk and not saying, yes, we're gonna we're the guaranteers of Minsk, so we're gonna pull through. It just makes it sound very human that these were just human errors, human mistakes that are, like you said, very consequential because we're talking about people who are elite politicians, and when they make a decision, it affects millions of people.
Speaker 2: That's exactly right. And I should clarify that when it comes to The US, these are decisions that were taken decades ago in a sense because it's not, ad hoc decisions. Back in the early nineteen nineties when the Soviet Union ended, the CIA, the, Pentagon, the security state apparatus of The US said, okay. Now we're the sole superpower. Now we're in charge.
Russia's weak. We can do what we want. That was the mindset. And the decision was taken, we know now, by historians, by people who participated already back in 1994 that The US would lead NATO eastward, contravening the solemn promises that were made in 1990 in Germany as part of German reunification, on 02/09/1990 when James Baker third, our Secretary of State, said to President Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will move not one inch eastward, but The United States Deep State said, we don't have to abide by that, they're not even here anymore. So Clinton already in 1994 started the eastward process by internal agreement.
The first, actual policies were revealed in the second half of the nineteen nineties, but the decisions were taken in 1994. So I don't want to say that it's ad hoc decisions by The US. It's consistently stupid decisions based on a strategy that was an arrogant, hubristic strategy. But what I do say is that Germany could have stopped it because it wasn't just German opposition, Europeans knew all along. This is a bad idea, this is provocative, why stir up the big bear to our east?
This is a a big country. Things are quiet and fine. Why stir things up? And they tried to explain that to The United States in my interpretation, but The US doesn't listen. So at that point, German leaders had a decision, make The US listen, say no, we're not going to have a conclusion of the Bucharest summit, in which case The US, in my view, would have had to back down, or consent, but then with huge consequences.
I can tell you, another European leader who was, around today as a leader was involved in 02/2008 and said to me afterwards, personally again, what is your president doing? This is so reckless, this is so irresponsible. They promised us, this person explained to me, that they wouldn't do this, and then Bush went off on Christmas vacation and they came back and they announced we're expanding NATO. Okay. This is a European leader who wouldn't dream of saying this publicly right now, but I I not only heard it with my own ears, this is somebody I'm friendly with, And it's extremely annoying and disappointing actually because these are not high school games, this is not a board game, this is not a poker game, This is real life with, hundreds of thousands of people dying because of these decisions.
Europe knew it. The United States is stupid. I'm gonna say it again. I I mean the leaders who are basically arrogant is the right point. You know, stupid means they're so arrogant they can't see through their own arrogance.
They think they call the shots, and the European leaders let them do it for at least the last sixteen years since 02/2008. This is a war between The United States and Russia. It's not a war between Ukraine and Russia. This is the most basic point. This is a war provoked by The US with US intentions, with US aims, for NATO enlargement, and, it would take a president that understands the basics of this and why this was so wrongheaded, and, such a an absurd and tragic idea that dates back thirty years now, inside the US security state to bring it to a close, but Biden was not that person, clearly.
Biden, bought into this whole reckless approach thirty years ago already, and has been part of this tragic adventure, that was somehow going to bring down Russia, but in the end, it's destroying Ukraine. So, yes, we need a we need a new president, and we need a president that, honestly understands what this has all been about. And the one thing, that we've discussed and the one thing that's absolutely true is the American people have never been told what this is all about. They've been told exactly the opposite.
Speaker 4: And I don't think even now there's an appreciation that NATO forces, clearly US forces in some form, federal employees or federal contractors are fighting in Russia, fighting Russia.
Speaker 2: Oh, this is, absolutely clear.
Speaker 5: We are
Speaker 4: at war with we have a hot war with Russia right now. We are in
Speaker 2: a hot war because it's not only our financing, our equipment, our aims, our objectives, our strategy, our advice, but it's our personnel on the ground. They are not necessarily in US uniform. Sometimes they're called mercenaries. Sometimes they're just not identified, but they are calling the shots. And, Russia knows it, and that by itself, is is is a big reason for alarm.
Speaker 4: Well, especially because Russia doesn't need to lob a nuke into Poland or Europe or The United States to fight back. Russia could disable critical American infrastructure without, you know, being obvious about it. Like, we're very vulnerable if Russia decides to strike at us.
Speaker 2: Well, the horrible thing about, this war from the start was that it could never conceivably have made sense for The United States to cross Russia's red lines because either Russia would win on the battlefield as it's doing, or Russia would lose on the battlefield and then escalate. And the escalation could be in many forms. Like you say, it could be attacks on US interests around the world, through proxies, or it could be as the Russians made clear if they're losing tactical nuclear weapons to start, and, with the escalation always in sight if, Russia was really profoundly threatened. So in the end, there was no path to success of a venture that started back in the Clinton administration, continued with Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden, which was to push NATO to Ukraine despite the clearest possible, brightest, biggest red line that Russia could convey in peacetime, which is don't do that. And Russia's attitude towards NATO and Ukraine was exactly analogous to what our attitude would be to a Russian military base on the Rio Grande in Mexico.
It would be, don't try that. Yes. And, this is obvious. It's not subtle. It has been expressed for more than thirty years.
But now we know, and more and more comes out and will come out, but Clinton approved this plan in 1994, that NATO would go east, including to Ukraine. Zbig Brzezinski laid it out in 1997, in an article which I always asserted was not Brzezinski's idea, but his way of telling his, colleagues, in the civilian sector, let's say, what was already decided. And that is that, yes, of course, we will go all the way to Ukraine. It became public in 02/2008 when, George W. Bush junior pushed at the Bucharest NATO summit, the commitment to enlarge NATO to Ukraine.
It became, a cause of war in February 2014 when The US conspired to overthrow a Ukrainian president that was against NATO enlargement who wanted Ukraine to be neutral because that president understood if you are Ukraine between east and west, try to keep your head down and stay neutral. And he understood that, so we had to overthrow him. And the The US did, and that's when the war started. So this was predictably a failure on every scenario. The particular scenario that is unfolding right now for the moment is, ironically, perhaps the safer one, which is that Russia's winning on the battlefield.
Yes. Because if Russia were losing on the battlefield, we would be seeing escalation to nuclear war. Well, first of all, this is purely money down the drain. So if they wanna rip up another $61,000,000,000, which is not chump change, they they seem intent on doing it, but it will mean nothing except more destruction for Ukraine. The fact of the matter is if if you don't listen to, the nonsense in our mainstream media, but listen to your show and others, people would know that, this war has destroyed Ukraine, and the longer it continues, the less there will be of Ukraine.
It's it's very simple actually. If this goes on longer, Russia will capture more territory. If it goes on long enough, Russia will capture Odessa. Kyiv, if if we continue the way we're doing, and this is a this is a Biden project that goes back ten years now, will completely destroy Ukraine. So the idea that this is siding with Ukraine is absurd.
Anyone who really follows events knows that we're not siding with Ukraine. We have paid for hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to go to the front lines and die for more and more territory to be lost because the most basic point of this war, which is that we overthrew a government in Ukraine in 2014 that wanted neutrality so that we could push NATO enlargement, was reckless, stupid, and doomed to fail, and it failed. Now Biden is, just trying to hide the failure to get past November, but the failure is, seen on the battleground every day. If the Republicans play into this, it's unbelievable. Shame on them.
They're they're basically on the right side, although Biden bludgeons them every day. You'll be the one to lose Ukraine. Well, the the truth of the matter is that Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine for a decade. The disaster is, there in the graves of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and lost territory. This is a war that never should have happened.
It was about NATO enlargement where the Russians said no NATO on our borders, and Americans who who were following this like our CIA director, Bill Burns, was then The US Ambassador to Russia in 02/2008 said, this is crazy. No way. The entire Russian political class is against this. But Biden and Obama and Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland, Jake Sullivan, Tony Blinken, they just barged ahead. They've wrecked everything, and now they want another $61,000,000,000 to get them past November.
It's it's a disgrace. It's completely a disgrace.
Speaker 6: To play devil's advocate, let me, you know, give you the other side and then allow you to respond to that. You know, what do you say to people that oh, maybe acknowledge there were certainly missteps with, with the expansion of NATO and the provocation. But nevertheless, Russia chose to respond to that with an invasion. The situation in Ukraine is due to that invasion. And so what do you say to people who think, well, but we so we are now responding to that invasion by funding, not committing American troops, but funding a resistance in Ukraine that wants to continue fighting?
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, the war began ten years ago when Victoria Noula not only passed out cookies, on Maidan, but, engaged in in insurrection to violently overthrow a government in Ukraine. Pretty stupid. Pretty stupid to have a regime change operation, on a country with a 2,000, kilometer border with Russia. That's our American foreign policy. That's when this war started.
This war didn't start in February 2022. It started in February 2014. It started with Newland. It started with Blinken. It started with Sullivan.
It started with Biden, who was a key person in that whole thing. And then the fight went on for ten years, and then in December 2021, Putin said, look, stop the NATO enlargement. We can avoid an escalation. I talked to the White House at that point. Nah.
We don't stop anything. They just thought they had all the cards. We're gonna cut them out of this swift banking system. We're gonna bring the economy to the knees. Bunch of nonsense by ignorant people.
And so Putin escalated. He didn't start the war. He escalated the war. And within basically a week, Zelensky said, okay. Okay.
Okay. We can be neutral. And the Turks mediated negotiations. And then though the US government wants to hide all of these facts which are sitting out there for those who know where to find them, The US intervened and told the Ukrainians, you keep fighting. And we have we have our senators who say this is the best the best money that money can buy because it's Ukrainians dying, not Americans.
They're weakening Russia. Well, they're not weakening Russia, but they are killing Ukrainians. So this is not responding to Putin's invasion. The war started ten years ago, and we kept refusing every off ramp till this day, Ravi. You know, you hear Putin say, and if you listen, every day, we're open to negotiations.
And then these fools in the US government say, there's no one to negotiate. They don't wanna negotiate. And then president Putin says, oh, we we we we're open to negotiation. Oh, there's no one to negotiate is what we hear from The US side. This is just narrative.
It's destroyed Ukraine, and they just rip up money like there's no tomorrow. So another 61,000,000,000. And now I hear from from you that the the latest plan is to take the illegally confiscated assets of Russia because there's no legal basis to do this and use that. That'll be really great for the international financial system, I'll tell you, because these are people who don't think ahead one day. They just improvise day by day and then they'll find out, oh, things don't work out so well for the US dollar, for, The US as reserve currency for, The US place in the world because these people are acting like clowns, frankly.
Day by day, not thinking ahead, doubling down on lost gambles, and everything to tell a story so that they can get to the elections in in the way they see fit.
Speaker 7: Professors, I wanna ask you about how The United States gets out of this now because I'm reminded of conversations that surrounded the war on Afghanistan for years, which was that we shouldn't have gotten into it. This is a mistake, but now we destabilized the country. We are in neck deep. We can't just stop funding and abandon this project, and that's a hamster wheel of sorts. Right?
So there are some people that I think are gonna listen to this and say, well, I I agree with everything you're saying, but what do you do at this point? It does you know, is it just a sunk cost, or is there some obligation to unwind this in a way that's responsible and doesn't leave Ukrainians high and dry?
Speaker 2: Ukrainians are high and dry no matter what we do. We've killed nearly half a million of them through this stupid project, And the ones that, that throw good money after bad are the ones themselves that are personally culpable for this. This is Biden's project. So this is the first starting point. You don't throw lie good lives, after those already dead and and, good money after bad when you have an absolute failure and disaster on your hands.
By the way, this is like every American effort. I'm old enough to remember Vietnam. You're saying words said about Vietnam. We do this over and over and over again in The US because our so called leaders have no sense and they don't think ahead. So, yes, we have to stop this.
But the one thing that we don't do, and it's really a bit of a mystery to me, it's the worst I've seen in my whole lifetime, we don't negotiate. Does Biden call Putin and say we need to talk? No. That would be weakness. That would be appeasement.
They don't even have the idea that you negotiate anything. And, you know, if you try everything by a military approach and a failed one, and you do it in these proxy wars where it's the people themselves, in these countries that are dying on the front lines, and you don't know anything about diplomacy, well, you make a complete mess of the world. And so the answer is, the first thing is The US and Russia should talk to each other because there's a cause of this war, and that's NATO enlargement. And by the way, that's no secret, and that's not propaganda. Even the, secretary general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said that absolutely explicitly as did the top negotiator for Zelensky, David Arkhamia.
This a war about NATO enlargement. So why doesn't Biden call up Putin and say, you know what? We gotta stop the war. And that whole NATO enlargement that I was party to going back to the nineteen nineties and, to twenty fourteen coup and all, that was a bad idea. Let's figure out how to stop the war, recognize mutual security, and stop the bloodshed and massacres in Ukraine.
If Biden were really acting like a president, that's what he would do.
Speaker 6: It's been about a year since a group of economists wrote an open letter about you accusing you of denying the agency of Ukraine, peddling Putin talking points, all of those kinds of things. It's a year later. How do you respond to them?
Speaker 2: Well, I don't respond. I tell them I told you so. I told them so from the beginning that this would be a complete disaster for Ukraine. People don't wanna hear this. They don't understand.
They don't know enough about American history. I told them Ukraine is gonna be like Afghanistan, and boy, is it like Afghanistan right now. So they didn't wanna hear. That's not right. That's not fair, professor Sachs.
I was telling them facts. I was giving them some good advice. They didn't wanna hear that. They wanted to hear about victory, glory, how Ukraine's gonna succeed, that great counter offensive, all the rest, all the baloney. But I said from the beginning that this would be a disaster.
I said this is just the latest neocon debacle. And I said explicitly it was gonna leave Ukraine like Afghanistan, and it was completely avoidable. So that's what I tell them. I'm sorry. Listen.
Pay attention. Learn something. That's what I say to them.
Speaker 1: The economist and public policy analyst, professor Jeffrey Sachs. Professor Sachs, great to have you back on Uncensored, particularly at this moment, which feels like a moment in history. What is your take on where we are, post this extraordinary Oval Office, shakedown, really, is what went down.
Speaker 2: It is a big moment. I I think what our new secretary of state Marco Rubio said a few weeks ago is the key. We are in a multipolar world. I think recognizing that is the first order of us all staying alive to avoid the risks of nuclear war. President Trump said several times that his greatest concern is to avoid World War three.
I say bravo on that because we had a lot of neglect of that obvious point for many, many years. So we are in a multipolar world. China is powerful. Russia is powerful. United States is powerful.
If Europe gets its act together, which I hope it does, Europe can be powerful. India will be a great power. That's a reality. Now it's a matter of these great powers, not blowing each other up, not getting into a a direct war, and also making sure that the rules of the game don't abuse the rest of the world. This is feasible.
I think we're on a more realistic course now than we were, actually just a few weeks ago.
Speaker 1: Do you think we're going to get a peace deal in Ukraine led by Donald Trump? And if so, how do you think this settlement will look?
Speaker 2: Well, we know how the settlement will look when it comes, and you can look it up online. There was an 04/15/2022 draft agreement nearly signed by Ukraine and Russia. If you reread it as I've done several times in the last few days, it's a good agreement. There were a few details left to be, concluded, but, basically, it was fine. But The United States and UK talked Ukraine out of the agreement, said continue to fight.
Don't accept neutrality. And, unfortunately, since that bad advice till today, about one million Ukrainians have lost their lives or have been gravely wounded. It wasn't good advice. So we know what the agreement will look like. It was already just about agreed.
Speaker 1: And so for those who are not, up to speed with that, 2022 memorandum, how would you summarize it?
Speaker 2: Yeah. The the agreement was that Ukraine would be neutral, that there would be security guarantees involving all of the great powers, including Russia, which I interpret and would recommend should be through the UN Security Council. There was an annexed map which showed what the territorial lines would be, and this was at the verge of being signed. This, I think, is the basis of an agreement, which is end the war, end the bloodshed, end the destruction. The longer it goes on, the worse for Ukraine.
I said that two years ago, that any delay meant more loss of life, more devastation. Ukraine would not win on the battlefield, and that's true. Now Donald Trump is basically saying, look. Biden played poker. He bluffed quite a bit.
He thought that The US economic sanctions would bring the Russian economy to its knees. Nope. He thought that the attackers and the HIMARS would bring Russia to defeat. He thought that, unrest inside Russia would prevent Russia.
Speaker 1: And so the assumption would be then that they what? They freeze on the current lines, the 20% that Russia's now occupying Ukraine, they would keep, albeit, I assume, with no chance for a sovereignty because Ukraine wouldn't agree to that,
Speaker 2: that Ukraine would No. No. I I I I first of all, we can't negotiate. This is
Speaker 1: No. I'm asking you what you think is most likely.
Speaker 2: Right. Oh, what I think should be done is a permanent peace, not a ceasefire or an armistice line. I don't want to revisit this war and have irredentist sentiments, and lobbying for a renewed war and the new military buildups and all the rest. I want peace. There should be peace.
Ukraine's mistake but by the way, it wasn't Ukraine's mistake. It was an American project that we've discussed that goes back to 1994, was to push NATO all the way to Ukraine, and that crossed Russia's understandable national security red line. And I would have respected Russia's national security red line because I felt that if you violated it, we would get to where we are today. So I would aim for peace, not a settlement that is grudging, imposed. We we never will accept the sovereignty of Russia.
What kind of peace is that? All of that is is just a prelude to the next war. We should have real peace. By the way, there are three groups of people that are involved or should be involved. They're the generals.
They know something about fighting, sometimes well or sometimes badly. They're the politicians. They know something about grandstanding. But then there are the diplomats. The diplomats should work out a real settlement.
And while it's not very popular to say, I'm gonna say it, the United Nations Security Council should be the ultimate place where that arrangement is settled, including China, including Russia, including Britain, France, The United States, all as co guarantors of a true peace. Not an armistice line, not a frozen conflict, not something that Ukraine never accepts. No. An end to this war because we have more important things to do on the planet than have a future in which the question of Lugansk and Donets play a central role in somebody's politics.
Speaker 1: There there are people like Elon Musk calling for America to withdraw from NATO. What just quickly, what is your response to that?
Speaker 2: It will happen if there is no settlement of this war. If Europe says well, I'm all in by the way, of Europe getting its act together. And I was in the European Parliament saying this just very recently.
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 2: But if it but if Europe says, we fight until 1991 borders are restored, The United States will wash its hands of all of this. I I can tell you, they will not play a losing hand. They started this, by the way. The US started this. The US said we can go wherever we want.
Big Brzezinski laid it all out in 1997 as clearly and explicitly as one can do. So The United States started it, but The US drops countries like hot potatoes. That's my whole life, whether it's Vietnam or Afghanistan, now Ukraine. So if the Europeans push so hard of Zelensky because for whatever reason as an individual says what is not in the interest of his country, it could be pretty bad for the relations between Europe and The United States. I would not recommend that at all.
Speaker 8: So in 02/2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 02/2014, there was a coup. They started persecuting those who did not accept the coup, and it was indeed a coup. They created a threat to Crimea, which we had to take under our protection. They launched the war in Donbas in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians.
This is when it all started. There is a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above. They launched a large scale military operation, then another one. When they failed, they started to prepare the next one. All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO's doors.
Speaker 9: June 2, the airplane attack, the air strike against the Lugansk City Hall. There was a photo made after that attack of Ine Kukarusa, a woman with red hair. Both of her legs were blown off. She was sitting there looking up one moment before she died. She was looking into the camera going, what are you gonna do about this?
What are you gonna do about this? And it was like she looked into my soul, and she was asking me. And so I said, yes. Of course. I'm going there to fight.
I'm gonna I'm going to avenge the murder of these, innocent civilians.
Speaker 10: On that day, eight people were killed and 28 wounded.
Speaker 11: To indiscriminate artillery shells. Switching to the Ukrainian language, she makes a heartrending plea to the president. We used to dance, sing, do everything in Ukrainian, she says. Poroshenko, mister Poroshenko, please listen to us. Why don't you understand your people?
Be a man. Be human. Please stop your aggression. Stop this war. But there is little sign of that.
This once thriving city is now half empty. Its railway station bombed. The force is unleashed by this conflict, greater perhaps than mister Poroshenko can control.
Speaker 12: Didn't start in February. The war started in 2014. And since 2014, NATO allies have provided support to Ukraine with training, with equipment. So the Ukrainian armed forces were much stronger in 2022 than they were in 2020 in 2014 and of course that made a huge difference when President Putin decided to attack Ukraine.
Speaker 2: When the Warsaw Pact military alliance of the Soviet Union was unilaterally disbanded in 1990 by president Gorbachev, of the Soviet Union, that was the opportunity to end NATO as well. Instead, the neocons made NATO an instrument of their delusion of US global hegemony. So instead of disbanding NATO, which would have made sense because NATO was no longer needed to defend against a no longer existent Soviet Union, NATO became an instrument of US power expansion. It finally led to wars in Georgia and Ukraine because The US pushed so far that the Russians said, no. We're not going to have you you, The US, on our borders militarily, something completely sensible and obvious to generations of American diplomats, but they were, overridden by the neocons, by the presidents that went along with this, and Europe bought into it, in a kind of fatuous way.
NATO doesn't need to exist for European security. NATO should have been disbanded in 1991 when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded and when the Soviet Union ended. What was NATO? NATO was to prevent a Soviet invasion of Europe. Russia was not invading Europe.
Even now, the pop pop pop pop that you hear from the British or others, this is absurd stuff, especially when the goal of NATO of The US is something completely different. It is to surround Russia, and it's all explained for decades. If anyone cares to read about this and the Russians said, ah, you're getting awfully close. You promised you wouldn't do this. And in 02/2007, Putin made a famous speech at the Munich Security Conference.
He said, don't go any farther. Stop. Of course, when The United States hears this, what do they say? We have to go farther. No one tells us what to do.
Believe me, this is the American mentality. I grew up in that country. I understand. Because if you look at the Black Sea, you would have Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia completely surrounding Russia. Now why would you do that?
Because a geographer would tell you, Brzezinski would tell you, that ends Russian power in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. That surrounds them. This is clear. And by the way, it was exactly the idea of Palmerston and Napoleon the third in 1853 in the first Crimean War. This is the second Crimean War we're fighting right now.
It was exactly their idea. Take the Russian fleet out of the Black Sea. We're doing it again. And and one should understand, and this is really the point, and it's really the tragedy. For The United States, for Brzezinski and others, this was a game, kind of a he called it a chessboard.
This is a game. For Russia, this is core national security. Okay. Now you're fighting right on Russia's border. One side, it's core national security.
The other side, it's a game. Who do you think is gonna win?
Speaker 12: President Putin actually sent a a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what what he sent us, and that was that that was a precondition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO across his borders.
Speaker 2: Flashback.
Speaker 12: This is fundamentally not about NATO expansion.
Speaker 13: It was never about NATO enlargement.
Speaker 5: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO expanding toward Russia. This was never about NATO? It's absolutely nothing to do with NATO expansionism. And it has nothing to do with NATO.
Speaker 14: This is not about NATO.
Speaker 5: This is not about NATO. It's not really about NATO. This is not about NATO. Seriously, it's not about
Speaker 14: NATO.
Speaker 5: This was never about NATO. It was never about NATO. Let's be honest. This has never anything to do with NATO. Nothing to do with NATO at all.
Yeah. He's claiming it's, like, security purposes, but we can see the clear reason.
Speaker 10: But NATO is not the reason.
Speaker 5: This is not about NATO expansion. This is about the democratic expansion. Ukraine bans religious organizations. We are protecting democracy right now. Ukraine is banning political parties.
Because it's a democracy. Ukraine restricts books and music. It's about democracy. Ukraine won't hold elections. It's about democracy.
And it's not about NATO expansion. This war in Ukraine is not about NATO.
Speaker 3: It's not
Speaker 11: about NATO. It's not about NATO.
Speaker 5: It has nothing to do with NATO. Nothing to do with NATO expansion.
Speaker 1: It's not about NATO expansion.
Speaker 15: Nothing to do with with NATO.
Speaker 11: It isn't really about NATO. It's not about NATO.
Speaker 16: It's not about NATO enlargement.
Speaker 5: In fact, it has nothing to do with NATO. It's not about NATO encroaching. It was not about NATO. NATO is just as a fictious imaginary adversary for for for mister Putin and for Russia. It was never about NATO.
That's not what it's been about. It's been about him trying to expand his sphere of influence.
Speaker 16: Hang on.
Speaker 5: I mean,
Speaker 1: the two are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, Russia has wished for a sphere of influence over Ukraine. But if the West had not challenged Russian interests so directly, I think that there there was a chance to avoid this war.
Speaker 12: He wanted us to sign a promise never to enlarge NATO. We rejected that.
Speaker 5: The reason why Putin invaded Ukraine is because of his evil.
Speaker 12: Evil. It's about that Putin wants to rebuild Soviet empire of evil like president Reagan told.
Speaker 5: It's about Putin being sick.
Speaker 14: I don't
Speaker 5: know how you negotiate peace with a madman, but nobody negotiated with Hitler. People were comparing him to Hitler.
Speaker 13: Hitler. And remember Hitler
Speaker 11: He's a Hitler.
Speaker 5: We're back when the Nazis invaded Poland. This is exactly the same what Hitler was doing to Jews. This is the same. Putin will not stop. Putin is reminiscent of Hitler.
Hitler. This reminds me of Hitler and Hitler.
Speaker 2: Hitler. He's the
Speaker 16: new Hitler.
Speaker 5: Who Hitler This is about a butcher trying to kill people everywhere in the world, just not Ukraine, Syria, all over the place.
Speaker 16: I hear you. Senator Lindsey Graham, always great to talk to you. Thanks so much. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Alright. Straight ahead.
Speaker 16: One often hears the argument, I'm sure you've all heard this, that in the eight years between when the crisis broke out in February 2014, and when the war began in February 2022. You see that eight year window there? Just keep the big picture in your mind. August 2008, that's the Bucharest summit, but the crisis doesn't break out until February 2014. And then the war breaks out eight years later, February 2022.
The argument is that in the eight years between when the crisis broke out and when the war broke out this past February, the United States and its allies paid little attention to bringing Ukraine into NATO. In effect, the issue had been taken off the table, and thus NATO enlargement could not possibly have been an important cause of the escalating crisis in 2021, and the subsequent outbreak of war earlier this year. This line of argument is false. In fact, the Western response to the events of 2014 was to double down on the existing strategy, and effectively make Ukraine a de facto member of NATO. The alliance began training the Ukrainian military in 2014, averaging 10,000 trained troops annually over the next eight years.
NATO was training 10,000 troops per year for eight straight years. In December 2017, the Trump administration decided to provide Kyiv with defensive weapons. Other countries quickly got into the act, shipping even more weapons to Ukraine. In addition, Ukraine's military participated in joint military exercises with NATO forces. In July 2021, less than a year ago, Kyiv and Washington co hosted hosted Operation Sea Breeze, a naval exercise in the Black Sea that included navies from 31 countries and was directly aimed at Russia.
Two Months later, in September 2021, the Ukraine army led Rapid Trident twenty one, which was, according to an official press release from the US Army, it was quote, a US Army Europe and Africa assisted annual exercise designed to enhance interoperability among allied and partner nations. Remember, I'm making the argument here, we were turning Ukraine into a de facto member of NATO. It was designed to enhance interoperability among allied and partner nations, to demonstrate units are poised and ready to respond to any crisis. NATO's efforts to arm and train Ukraine's military explains in good part why it has fared so well against Russian forces in the ongoing war. It's not simply Russian incompetence, it's the fact that we armed and trained those Ukrainian forces and turned them into a formidable fighting force.
A headline in a recent issue of the Wall Street Journal put it quite nicely. This is quoting that headline in the Wall Street Journal. The secret of Ukraine's military success, colon, years of NATO training. Years of NATO training. In addition to NATO's ongoing efforts to make the Ukrainian military a formidable fighting force, the politics surrounding Ukraine's membership in NATO and its integration into the West changed in 2021.
There was renewed enthusiasm for pursuing Ukrainian membership in NATO in 2021. And the change took place in both Kyiv and in Washington. Let me start by telling you what happened in Kyiv. President Zelensky, who had never shown much enthusiasm for bringing Ukraine into NATO, and who was elected in March 2019 on a platform that called for working with Russia to settle the ongoing crisis, reversed course in early twenty twenty one. And not only embraced NATO expansion, but also adopted a hard line approach toward Moscow.
He made a series of moves like shutting down pro Russian TV shows and stations, and arresting an especially close friend of Putin and charging him with treason. These were all moves that were sure to anger Moscow. President Biden, who moved into the White House in January 2021, Biden is moving into the White House just as Biden, just as Zelensky is beginning to do a flip on his views towards Ukraine and towards Russia. President Biden had long been committed to bringing Ukraine into NATO, and was also super hawkish towards Russia. And you wanna remember that when he was vice president in the Obama administration, President Obama assigned him, Joe Biden, with the Ukraine portfolio.
So he was no stranger to this issue. Unsurprisingly, on 06/14/2021, about a year ago, almost a year ago to the day, NATO issued the following communique at its annual Brussels summit. I'm gonna quote. We reiterate the decision made at the two thousand and eight Bucharest summit that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance, dot dot dot, as an integral part of the process, we reaffirm all elements of that decision. We reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits.
We stand firm in our support for Ukraine's right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference. On 09/01/2021, Zelensky visited the White House, where Biden made it clear in his public statements that The United States was quote, firmly committed to Ukraine's Euro Atlantic aspirations. Then on 11/10/2021, Secretary of State Tony Blinken and his Ukrainian counterpart signed an important document. It's called The US Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership. It's available on the website or on the internet if you're interested.
This is what it says. The aim of both parties is to quote, underscore a commitment to Ukraine's implementation of the deep and comprehensive reforms necessary for full integration into Europe and Euro Atlantic institutions. That document explicitly builds not just on quote, the commitments made to strengthen The Ukraine US strategic partnership by presidents Zelenskyy and Biden, end of quotes, but it also reaffirms The US commitment to the, quote, two thousand eight Bucharest summit declaration. In short, there is little doubt that starting in early twenty twenty one, Ukraine began moving rapidly toward joining NATO.
Speaker 2: So the war started. What was Putin's intention in the war? I can tell you what his intention was. It was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality. And that happened within seven days of the start of the invasion.
You should understand this, not the propaganda that's written about this. Oh, that they failed and he was gonna take over Ukraine. Come on, ladies and gentlemen. Understand something basic. The idea was to keep NATO.
And what is NATO? It's The United States off of Russia's border. No more, no less. I should add one very important point. Why are they so interested?
First, because if China or Russia decided to have a military base on the Rio Grande or in the Canadian border, not only would The United States freak out, we'd have war within about ten minutes, but because The United States unilaterally abandoned the anti ballistic missile treaty in 02/2002 and ended the nuclear arms control framework by doing so. And this is extremely important to understand. The nuclear arms control framework is based on trying to block a first strike. The ABM treaty was a critical component of that. The US unilaterally walked out of the ABM treaty in 02/2002.
It blew a Russian gasket. So everything I've been describing is in the context of the destruction of the nuclear framework as well. And starting in 02/2010, the US put in Aegis missile systems in Poland and then in Romania, and Russia doesn't like that. And one of the issues on the table in December and January, December '20 '20 '1, January '20 '20 '2, was does The United States claim the right to put missile systems in Ukraine? And Blinken told Lavrov in January 2022, the United States reserves the right to put middle sis missile systems wherever it wants.
That's your putative ally. And now let's put intermediate missile systems back in Germany. The United States walked out of the INF treaty unilaterally in 2019. There is no nuclear arms framework right now. None.
Speaker 14: When
Speaker 2: Zelensky said in seven days, let's negotiate, I know the details of this exquisitely because I've talked to all the parties in detail. Within a couple of weeks, there was a document exchanged that president Putin had approved, that Lavrov had presented, that was being managed by the Turkish mediators. I flew to Ankara to listen in detail to what the mediators were doing. Ukraine walked away unilaterally from a near agreement. Why?
Because The United States told them to. Because the UK added icing to the cake by having Bojo go in early April to Ukraine and explain. And he has recently and if your security is in the hands of Boris Johnson, god help us all. Keith Starmer turns out to be even worse. It's unimaginable, but it is true.
Boris Johnson has explained, and you can look it up on the website, that what's at stake here is Western hegemony, not Ukraine, Western hegemony. Michael and I met at the Vatican with a group in the spring of twenty twenty two where we wrote a document explaining nothing good can come out of this war for Ukraine. Negotiate now because anything that takes time will mean massive amounts of deaths, risk of nuclear escalation, and likely loss of the war. I wanna change one word from what we wrote then. Nothing was wrong in that document.
And since that document, since The US talked the negotiators away from the table, about a million Ukrainians have died or been severely wounded. And the American senators who are as nasty and cynical and corrupt as imaginable say this is wonderful expenditure of our money because no Americans are dying. It's the pure proxy war. One of our senators nearby me, Blumenthal, says this out loud. Mitt Romney says this out loud.
It's best money America can spend. No Americans are dying. It's unreal. Now, just to bring us up to yesterday, this failed. This project failed.
The idea of the project was that Russia would fold its hand. The idea all along was Russia can't resist as Zbigniew Brzezinski explained in 1997. The Americans thought we have the upper hand. We're gonna win because we're gonna bluff them. They're not really gonna fight.
They're not really gonna mobilize. The nuclear option of cutting them out of swift, that's gonna do them in. The economic sanctions, that's gonna do them in. The HIMARS, that's gonna do them in. The ATACMs, the f sixteens.
Honestly, I've listened to this for seventy years. I've listened to it as semi understanding, I'd say, for, about fifty six years. They speak nonsense every day. My country, my government. This is so familiar to me, completely familiar.
I begged the Ukrainians, and I had a track record with the Ukrainians. I advised the Ukrainians. I'm not anti Ukrainian. I'm pro Ukrainian completely. I said, save your lives.
Save your sovereignty. Save your territory. Be neutral. Don't listen to the Americans.
Speaker 16: What's going on here is that the West is leading Ukraine down the Primrose path, and the end result Ukraine is going to get wrecked. And I believe that the policy that I'm advocating, which is neutralizing Ukraine and then building it up economically and getting it out of the competition between Russia on one side and NATO on the other side is the best thing that could happen to the Ukrainians. What we're doing is encouraging the Ukrainians to play tough with the Russians. We're encouraging the Ukrainians to think that they will ultimately become part of the West because we will ultimately defeat Putin, and we will ultimately get our way. Time is on our side.
And, of course, the Ukrainians are playing along with this, and the Ukrainians are almost completely unwilling to compromise with the Russians and instead wanna pursue a hard line policy. Well, as I said to you before, if they do that, the end result is that their country is gonna be wrecked. And what we're doing is in effect encouraging that outcome. I think it would make much more sense for us to neutral to to work to create a neutral Ukraine. It would be in our interest to bury this crisis as quickly as possible.
It certainly would be in Russia's interest to do so. And most importantly, it would be in Ukraine's interest to put an end to the crisis.
Speaker 17: The CIA has 20 bases in Ukraine. Do you know what a CIA base is? It's a major center of operations. The the size of the the number of personnel can be assigned to each base can go from, say, 10 to to over a hundred. In Vietnam, which was a ten year war for us, we had 12 to 16 bases.
In Ukraine, we have 20 bases. This is a major effort by the CIA. This isn't minor. This isn't peripheral. And those bases cover the entire gamut of operations from unconventional warfare, guerrilla warfare, to deep, reconnaissance strikes inside Russia, to political attacks on Russia, to undermining the the Russian population inside this to create pro Russian armies, mercenaries to invade.
This is what the CIA is doing in Ukraine. This is a major effort. This isn't a joke. This isn't a gimmick. This isn't a, you know, a nice to have.
This is a major effort by The United States to destroy Russia. The golden objective of this is the strategic defeat of Russia. Strategic defeat doesn't mean that Russia just gets a slap on the wrist. When you strategically defeat Russia, you collapse the Russian economy. That means Russia goes back to the nineteen nineties.
You collapse Russian society back to the nineteen nineties. You collapse Russia politically back to the nineteen nineties. This is literally trying to take Russia back in time. That's what the strategic defeat of Russia is. So when people say, why is Putin doing this?
He's doing it to save Russia from this campaign being orchestrated by The United States to destroy Russia. This isn't a game. This isn't a gimmick. This is as real as it gets. Talk to anybody who lived in Russia in the nineteen nineties and ask them how it was.
The horror of that decade. Millions of Russians died needlessly. Democracy wasn't created. It was destroyed not by Russia, but by The United States. There's a memorandum that just came out published in the National Security Archives, written by a senior state department official, I think, Mary, who was the charge of the affairs number two at the embassy in 1994.
And he says straight up, what are we doing? We are destroying Russian democracy, not building Russian democracy. In backing Boris Yeltsin, we have destroyed the institutions of democracy we claimed we want to build. People criticize Putin and say Putin is the one who destroyed democracy, but Putin didn't inherit democracy. He inherited a CIA gimmick plan operation to use democracy to take control of the Russian government.
Not real democracy, but democracy in, you know, in in in quotation marks. People need to understand this. I'm not saying that the Russians haven't done anything wrong. I'm sure we can look at things and say they could have done that better. They could have done that better.
They could have done that better. But if people don't understand that war was literally the last option, Russia did everything possible to prevent this war. Tony Blinken just gave an interview that gave it all away where he admits. He said, in September of twenty twenty two '21, we began secretly sending weapons to Ukraine. Yeah.
Why? It's an important date, September 2021. In June 2021, Biden met with Putin in Geneva in their summit. And at that summit, Biden promised Putin. Putin said, if you want our troops to stop moving along the borders, then you need to stop what's going on here.
Stop the Ukrainian buildup. Stop the threats. And the way to do that is through implementation full implementation of the Minsk Accords. And Biden said, yes. I will instruct Blinken to do this.
That was in June. In September, Blinken secretly sending weapons to Ukraine. Why? Had no intention whatsoever of putting pressure on Germany and France to implement Minsk. In October, the Russians confronted the Germans and the French and said, you must do this, and they said no.
Why? Well, we now know. Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande have acknowledged that Minsk was always a sham, always a lie, always meant to buy time to build for NATO to build Ukrainian army so they could attack and liberate the Donbas, to eliminate to finish the CIA's job of eliminating the political viability of the Russian population of the Donbas. And Russia said not just no, but hell no. But did they go to war original?
No. In December December seventeenth, Russia provides two draft treaties, one to NATO, one to The United States, saying, we're not looking for war. We're looking for a new European security framework that brings peace and stability to the region. It was rejected by NATO and The United States. In January and February, Russia reached directly to the Ukrainians and tried to negotiate it in, and the Ukrainians mocked the Russians.
And when the Russian incursion, the special military operation began, it wasn't a war of destruction or occupation. It was a campaign designed to get Ukraine to the negotiating table, and it worked. Six days after Russia crossed the border, Ukraine initiated or participated in the first round of negotiations in Gomel Byeloruss. And by the March, they had a completed treaty, a peace treaty. A peace treaty was signed and ready to be implemented, and the west said no.
Yeah. The west said no. So don't blame Russia. Russia is blameless in all of this. Russia is simply defending Russia's right to survive.
This isn't a war about Russia trying to destroy Ukraine. This is a war about the west trying to use Ukraine to destroy Russia.
Speaker 18: Or in Ukraine, which are happening there. And what do you you know, what what is the end game?
Speaker 19: Well, for the globalists that are running the show, this is a globalist neocon elite in both on the Hill as well as in the White House and these elites in Europe, particularly in Paris, Berlin, London. They're all interested in seeing BlackRock take over Ukraine, number one, so that it can systematically stripped of its resources and turned into a subjugated state that belongs to the larger globalist elites. But they also wanna see that happen to Russia, which is why this war was never about Ukraine. It was always about what can be done to destroy Russia. And, of course, since the people in charge didn't perform any strategic analysis, they never thought about purpose, method, or end state.
They concluded that Russia today is still the Russia of 1992. It's weak. It's prostrate. Its economy is ineffective. Remember the McCain statement?
Oh, Russia is Spain with a gas station. All of these arrogant displays of American hubris treating Russia as though it was a third class nation with a fourth class military. Well, we're getting an education right now. We paid no attention to the Russians who had legitimate concerns about what we were doing in Eastern Ukraine. We were building an army to attack them.
We put a hostile government into that country in 2014, and we kept telling them that it made no difference to us what they thought or what they cared about. They said we don't want NATO on our border. No one paid attention. President Trump tried to listen, but he was surrounded by people who subverted him. People who are not loyal to the president, who who took an oath of obedience to the orders of the president and then ignored them.
So what's what's the outcome? You've got a very serious war that could become regional, even global, and no one in the White House seems to really grasp that. But we're losing. The globalists are losing. And when the ground dries and in June, you're straight you're gonna see a massive Russian offensive, and most of what we call this thing called Ukraine is gonna be swept away, especially that government in Kyiv.
But that government doesn't represent the interests of the Ukrainian people. They represent the interests of this globalist elite who are interested in resources and stripping them and using them and exploiting them to make money.
Speaker 18: Yeah. It feels like, you know, the biggest threat to America is actually what's happened to the petrodollar when you have Putin now talking with the Saudis and Putin now talking with Xi, and you get rid of the petrodollar, and all of sudden, all that borrowing that we do, where we're living way above our means, that's no longer possible, plausible, or or worse.
Speaker 19: I think what you're seeing is this war has become financial as well as military. And the globalists understand that they're going to lose this war. And what will come of this is that the BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, are going to be increased by 81 additional members. And all of these people are going to go to a currency that is backed by gold. And once they go to that currency backed by gold, whether it is one currency or a basket of currencies, it doesn't make any difference.
Yes. We are in a lot of trouble. The globalists know that, and it is why they are so desperate right now. And the greatest fear that I have is that when the Russians do attack and it becomes abundantly clear that Ukraine is finished. I mean, it's already obvious to anybody who visits a place for any length of time.
It's in ruins. But once that occurs, I fear that there will be pressure to commit US forces in Poland and Romania along with Polish forces and potentially Romanian ones to Western Ukraine. And if that occurs, the gloves will come off because, truthfully, thus far, Putin has exercised tremendous restraint, tremendous patience. He does not want a war with the West. If he wanted that, we'd already have it.
But if we intervene in Western Ukraine, it's over. We'll be in a full fledged war.
Speaker 18: Expand on that a little bit because it's sort of interesting. You know? I like
Speaker 19: I think we've grossly miscalculated. Putin had made several speeches over the last twenty years repeatedly saying, please do not advance the border to Russia. Do not try to transform Ukraine into a hostile actor, an actor with hostile intentions towards Russia. What happens in Ukraine is of an existential strategic interest to us. Just as, theoretically, what happens in Mexico is of the existential strategic interest to us.
Although this administration has decided to ignore it. He expected that we would negotiate, that he would demonstrate that this was serious, and that Russia wanted to wanted its population in Eastern Ukraine, which is really Russian, to have equal rights before the law. He wanted to end the oppression of the Russians that lived there, and he wasn't going to surrender Crimea. The reason he went into Crimea is he was afraid it was gonna be turned into a US naval base. Biden said, our goal is regime change.
Our goal is to get rid of Putin, and our goal is ultimately to divide Russia into constituent parts, then exploit it. All of his supporters, his staffers, everyone in the globalist camp knows this is the truth. The so called oligarchs, Koloboyski, Soros, and others were all part of this. None of this is news. Finally, he said enough's enough.
He stopped. They set up a strategic defense. They ran an economy of force mission, and now they have a force in place that can go as far as it needs to go, which includes to the Polish border. They have a plan for a thirty one thirty one month war against us if we insist on fighting it, and we are in no shape to fight a war. We can't even recruit the United States Army or the marines.
The marines are running around trying to recruit illegals that are being encouraged to do so by the administration. Is that is that what you want in the ground force to fight for this country? Forget it. It's not gonna work.
Speaker 14: Our first task is a ceasefire in Donbas. I assure you, I'll do whatever it takes for our heroes to no longer die. I
Speaker 13: haven't heard a word about the civilians in Donbas, and I'm sure neither of you. Zelenskyy was speaking about the militants of the so called anti terrorist operation. At that time, Eastern Ukraine had been under shelling for five years, and that's why the words about peace were so eagerly awaited. I would like to remind you that in 02/2014, there was a coup d'etat called Maidan. Did it happen on its own without anyone's help?
I agree with you. There is no doubt. The opposition sees power with the support of various radical right wing movement.
Speaker 17: The
Speaker 13: eastern and southern regions of the country stood against the new illegal government, but the resistance was brutally suppressed. On 05/02/2014, Ukrainian nationalists burned 48 people alive in the trade union's house in Odessa. At that time, Zelensky, a popular actor in Ukraine and Russia, had zero reaction, but the Odessa events became a point of no return for the country. Residents of Donbas decided to separate from Ukraine. In response, Kyiv declared its citizens as terrorists and launched an army against them.
Over time, the civil war escalated into an armed conflict with Russia. However, all of this was preceded by extensive preparation and support from The United States and Western countries.
Speaker 15: The United States has invested some $5,000,000,000 in Ukraine, since 1991 when it became an independent state again after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that money has been spent on supporting the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to have a strong democratic government that represents their interest.
Speaker 13: As a result, destroyed cities, chaos, and the loss of life on both sides of the conflict. In our country, it's usual to blame everything on Russia. But what didn't president Volodymyr Zelenskyy do himself to prevent this horror? Firstly, he could have implemented the Minsk agreements. In September 2014, Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France signed them.
One of the critical conditions for peace was granting special status to Donbas. December two thousand nineteen, a joint conference following the Normandy format meeting.
Speaker 14: It is necessary, of course, to extend the agreement term on the special status of certain regions of Donbas, and ultimately make this norm permanent.
Speaker 13: Here comes the moment for Zelenskyy to repay debt for wealth, for coming to power. Just look at it. He doesn't even hide his smirk during the speech of Russian president Vladimir Putin. Apparently, he already knew that the Minsk agreements were just a scream, covering the preparations for a full scale war between Ukraine and Russia. As for Russia and Donbas, they were deceived from the very beginning.
Furthermore, both Zelenskyy and Petropur Shchenko were eager to join not only the European Union, but also NATO. And NATO secretary general Jan Stoltenberg has been promising to accept Ukraine for many years. Of course, this irritates and angers Russia. Who wants to have a constant military threat at their doorstep? As an American, I wouldn't be happy either.
For example, with Chinese military bases on the Mexican border. But Russia is different. Let's turn Ukraine against it, arm it to the tee, and sit it in the battle. US Foreign Policy Expert James Jatras accurately assesses what is happening.
Speaker 20: Our policy, however, is to weaken and destroy Russia. For that purpose, yes, we are interested in Ukraine. Ukraine is a club we can beat the Russians with. It has nothing to do with Ukraine, nothing to do with Ukrainians who are simply expendable people as far as these governments are concerned.
Speaker 13: But it seems like the authorities of Ukraine don't really care. Besides, president Zelenskyy and his team are adding fuel to the fire.
Speaker 14: I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. If they aren't held again or their results don't guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working, and all the package decisions 1994 are being questioned.
Speaker 13: The Budapest Memorandum is an agreement under which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. In 1994, it was signed by Russia, United States, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Ukraine had to agree because it didn't have the money to maintain a nuclear arsenal, and recent history has shown that the world is very lucky it turned out that way.
Speaker 14: Even if we couldn't maintain them, them, we could reduce the nuclear capabilities instead, and we could use it to blackmail the entire world. And they would give us money for the maintenance.
Speaker 13: Imagine that, a nuclear power that blackmails the whole world, demanding money. Would you like to have such a neighbor? I'm sure you wouldn't. No one would. The president of Ukraine practically declares his desire to regain nuclear weapons, and Russia initiates a special military operation.
To bring it to this point, Ukraine had to be made an enemy of Russia or anti Russia.
Speaker 2: If you live on the continent next to Russia, you don't stand up and scream every day, you're evil. You're evil. You're evil. You actually sit down, discuss, and negotiate. You don't let The United States blow up the pipeline that provides the energy for Europe and then sit there like a You're done saying that.
Dumb idiot. We don't know who did it. Well, I can give you 50 quotations by American officials saying we'll never let that happen. I can quote on video, show you the president of The United States saying on 02/07/2022, if Russia invades, Nord Stream will be finished. And then the reporter says, but, mister president, how can you do that?
And he says, believe me, we have our ways.
Speaker 5: If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the the the border of Ukraine again, then there will be we there will be no longer a Nord Stream two. We we will bring it into it.
Speaker 21: Okay. But how will you how will you do that exactly since the project and control of the project is within Germany's control?
Speaker 5: We will I promise you we'll be able to do it.
Speaker 2: Is that a clue? Well, the Europeans couldn't figure that out, that little clue. There's a chancellor Schultz standing next to Biden. Quiet. He heard all of this, Then the pipeline gets blown up.
We don't know who did it. We don't know. And then there are the investigations, but those have to be kept secret even from the Bundestag, even from the public, even from the United Nations. This is not foreign policy. This is not foreign policy.
This is doing what The United States wants, but now you obviously can't just follow Trump. Obviously, they thought naively they could follow Biden. I could have told them, and I did tell them repeatedly. No. You can't.
You should understand The United States. You should understand how weak the foreign policy is. You should understand how crazy the idea of US unipolarity is. Understand this. You know what I was told here?
Don't talk to me anymore. Who blew up Nord Stream?
Speaker 10: We?
Speaker 8: You for sure.
Speaker 4: I was busy that day. Nate, do you have do you have I did not blow up Nord Stream. Thank you, though.
Speaker 12: Was it was it Lichtna? Was Lichtna?
Speaker 8: You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi.
Speaker 4: Do do you have evidence that NATO or the CIA did it? By Nord Stream, disintegrating. Can you describe what happened?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, you know, The US blew up Nord Stream, as it promised to on probably dozens of occasions, but the most recent, of those occasions, was president Biden said I think it's 02/07/2022. I may have the date a little bit off, but he said in a statement to the press, Russians invade Ukraine, Nord Stream is finished. And reporter who asked him the question, I think from Germany, but in international, said, well, mister president, how how can you say that? How could you do that?
And he looks and he says very gravely, believe me, we have our ways. Okay. So this is, and then you can go back and find a thousand clips Oh, yeah. Victoria Nooly
Speaker 14: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2: And Cruz, and everyone's saying, this must stop. This must stop. We'll never let it happen. It will be destroyed. It will be ended.
Okay. So then it's blown up. Okay? And you and and and the America, you know well, before we get to that, I was on Bloomberg soon afterwards. I don't remember whether it was the next day or the day after, and I said, you know, I think The US did this.
Mister Sachs, how can you how can you say that? And I said, well, first the president said he was gonna it was gonna be over, and then there's actually, you know, some readings of planes in the vicinity and so forth, and and and there was the tweet by the former and now current foreign minister of Poland. Thank you, USA, with a picture of of of the the water bubbling over the blown up pipeline, Radek Sikorsky's tweet. And there was Anne Applebaum's husband. Yes.
There there there was a bit of evidence that, well, yes, The United States had done this. Thank you very much. They said they would, and they did it. I was yanked off the air within thirty seconds. I could
Speaker 20: The sledgehammer that we have against Putin is to shut down the Nord Stream two pipeline and do it permanently.
Speaker 10: This is a real acute and proven threat.
Speaker 5: I am a big proponent of, making sure we stop Nord Stream two from from happening.
Speaker 3: Stopping Stopping the Nord Stream two.
Speaker 5: And, you know, Trump also isn't wrong to identify Nord Stream two, this pipeline that you talked about today, as problematic.
Speaker 10: There is still time to stop Nord Stream two if we act quickly.
Speaker 22: The timeline for action is short.
Speaker 10: And I'm not gonna stop working to halt Nord Stream two to stop Russia.
Speaker 20: End it once and for all.
Speaker 4: I mean, he needs to kill the keys the Nord Stream Nord Stream two pipeline right now,
Speaker 5: and I think the most important thing right now and what Zelenskyy said is they want Nord Stream two stopped. That's what I see as the most tangible reason and the tangible, effect.
Speaker 20: I believe we must stop this Nord Stream two pipeline.
Speaker 5: And we should have brought the project to an end.
Speaker 10: There's still time to stop it,
Speaker 5: but we need to act quickly.
Speaker 20: Nord Stream two is danger is a danger to peace as we know it.
Speaker 2: Nord Stream two is energy blackmail.
Speaker 20: It's Putin's pipeline. It's a trap for the a Russian trap.
Speaker 5: There will be we there will be no longer a Nord Stream two. We we will bring an end to it.
Speaker 3: We will put an end to it.
Speaker 5: Germany should cancel the Nord Stream two gas pipeline. We're looking at a variety of things we could do there. We've been so far using trying to use other tools to stop the Nord Stream two. And we got legislation that was appropriate to now have delayed this project significantly. We need further tools.
We're prepared to use those tools should you provide them, to us. And and we've also used our diplomatic capabilities.
Speaker 10: This pipeline must be stopped, and the only way to prevent the completion is to use all the tools available to do that.
Speaker 15: If Russia invades Ukraine, One way or another, Nord Stream two will not move forward.
Speaker 22: Kill Nord Stream two now and let it rust beneath the waves of the Baltic.
Speaker 2: The operator of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, which run between Russia and Germany, says that three lines on the Baltic Seabed were damaged on Tuesday.
Speaker 5: It was a deliberate act of sabotage, and now the Russians are pumping out disinformation lines. This is
@AnonymousDigs - Anon Researcher
@TuckerCarlson continues to blow Russia/Ukraine narratives wide open! https://youtu.be/IYDFzdBQ7SY?si=KJcE0EIWAjZGdqIh
@FrankFurter420a - Frank Furter
@LFJIreland @HellofromSuMar The truth about the Ukraine war in 3 minutes https://t.co/UDJ4nOjvhZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
- "This is a war that should have never happened."
- "The major thing they wanted was for us to keep NATO out of the Ukraine."
- "March 2022, we committed a 113,000,000,000."
- "it's not really going to Ukraine. It is 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? Blackrock."
- "Ukraine has to 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."
- "500,000 kids almost. Ukrainian kids have died to keep that land as part of Ukraine."
- "And then in December, president Biden gave out the contract to rebuild Ukraine. And who do you think got that contract? Lakhra."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is 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 want to add new countries to NATO all the time. Why?
Because then that country has to conform its military purchases to NATO weapon specifications, which means certain companies, North Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics Boeing, and Lockheed, get a trapped market. March 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 two 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 you all the things that we destroyed.
Mitch McConnell was asked, can we really afford to spend spend a 113,000,000,000 to Ukraine? He said, don't worry. It's not really going to Ukraine. It is 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? Blackrock. So Tim Scott, during the Republican debate, said, don't worry. It's not a gift to Ukraine. It's a loan.
So 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? Because if they call it a loan, they can impose loan conditions.
And what are the loan conditions that we impose on? Number one, of extreme austerity program so that if you're poor in Ukraine, you're gonna be poor forever. Number two, most important, Ukraine has to 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 thousand 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 gave out the contract to rebuild Ukraine. And who do you think got that contract? Lakhra. So they're doing this right in front of us. They don't even care that we know anymore because they know 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
@ricwe123 - Richard
All the time Western mainstream media keeps telling us that the war in Ukraine was somehow "unprovoked" But then i listen to this leaked phone call between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt, and realize I was just listening to a carefully fabricated lie...... https://t.co/xqto4UFKzH
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss Klitschko piece as complicated electron, especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister. 'I don't think cleats should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's a good idea.' They debate keeping moderate Democrats together, with Yadze or Yatzenyuk as governing figure; 'He's the guy you know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tani Book on the outside.' 'Klitschko going in, he's gonna be at that level working for Yatzenyuk.' They consider reaching out to Klitschko directly to move fast and manage personality among the three, and to set up a 'three plus one conversation or three plus two with you.' Jeff Feltman mentions Robert Seri and that Seri could come in Monday or Tuesday with Ban Ki Moon's agreement; 'fuck the EU' as aim. They worry Russians will torpedo; plan outreach to Yanukovych; Biden's involvement: 'Biden's willing.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What do you think?
Speaker 1: I think we're in play. The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here, especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister. And and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now. So we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call we wanna set up, is exactly the one you made to to Yat.
And I I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad he said what he said in response.
Speaker 0: Good. So I don't think cleats should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's a good idea.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I I guess you think what in terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we wanna keep the moderate Democrats together. The problem is gonna be Tony Book and his guys. And, you know, I'm sure that's part of what Yanukovich is calculating on all of this.
I kinda
Speaker 0: I just I think Yadze is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's he's the guy you know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tani Book on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week. You know? I I I just think Klitsch going in, he's gonna be at that level working for Yatzenyuk.
It's just not gonna work.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. I think that's I think that's right. Okay. Good.
Well, do you want us to try to set up a call with him as the next step?
Speaker 0: My understanding from that call, but you tell me, was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yatz was gonna offer in that context a three way you know, the three plus one conversation or three plus two with you. Is that not how you understood it?
Speaker 1: No. I think I mean, that's what he proposed. But I think just knowing the dynamic that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's gonna take a while to show up for whatever meeting they've got. He's probably talking to his guys at this point. So I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three, and it and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it behind it before they all sit down and he, he explains why he doesn't like it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after?
Speaker 1: Okay. Will do. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Okay. I've now written oh, one more wrinkle for you, Jeff.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Can't remember if I told you this or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy, Robert Seri. Did I write you that this morning?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I saw that.
Speaker 0: He's now gotten both Seri and Ban Ki Moon to agree that Seri could come in Monday or Tuesday.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it and, you know, fuck the EU.
Speaker 1: No. Exactly. And I think we've gotta do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does if it does start to gain altitude, the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And, again, the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych that. But in the meantime, there's a party of regions faction meeting going on right now, and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point.
But, anyway, we could we could land jelly set up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on let me work on Klitschko. And if you can just keep I I think we wanna try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. And then the other the other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych, but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Speaker 0: So on that piece, Jeff, when I wrote the note, Sullivan's come back to me, VFR, saying you need Biden. And I said probably tomorrow for an attaboy and get the deets to stick. So Biden's willing.
Speaker 1: Okay. Great. Thanks.
@ricwe123 - Richard
All the time we are told how the war in Ukraine is somehow "unprovoked" But then i see this video from Joe Biden in 2016: "We led a coup in Ukraine, installed a government, looted, and played both sides" https://t.co/0aropdaj2d
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker notes that they are not the pen pal but the phone pal of Poroshenko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and now the speaker themselves. For the last four years, they have been on the phone two to three hours a week with those folks. There is an overwhelming instinct in Europe to say, before you guys became president, this was owned by Russia anyway. They ask, what difference does it make? Why are you making us engage in these sanctions? The speaker recalls last year, they were authorized to say they’d do the second tranche of a billion dollars, and he didn’t fire his chief prosecutor. Because the speaker has the confidence of the president, they were there. They said, “I’m not signing it. Until you fire him, we’re not signing it.” They clarified, “We’re not doing it.” Until you form a new government and you actually bring in someone who will move on this, they’re not playing. It’s not because they’re trying to play hardball, but because they know if they give an excuse to the EU, there are at least five countries right now that want to say, wooah, want out.
What they are putting together now is a basic detailed road map of who goes first and who goes second. There are two pieces: one is the security guarantees that are to flow from Russia, and two, the political steps that Ukraine has to take. Some of the steps are very difficult to take. They’ve already done the energy piece, they’ve done some other things, but the point is that when you say the dumb boss is gonna have a special status and you’re gonna amend your constitution, it’s like saying, okay, you know, Texas and Wyoming—Texas is gonna have a special status that we don’t want because we want Mexico to have more influence in Texas. And we’re gonna pass that through the United States Congress. So there are some really tough stuff they’ve gotta do. They’re willing, and the speaker is convinced they will do it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: No. I I am not the pen pal, but the phone pal of Poroshenko and Arseny Yat sen Yuk and now the speaker. I literally, without exaggeration, the last four years I'm on the phone, two to three hours a week with with with those folks. There's an overwhelming instinct in Europe to say, hey, before you guys became president, this was owned by Russia anyway. They had a puppet there.
What difference does it make? What the hell is the difference? Why are you making us engage in these sanctions? You remember last year, I was authorized to say we'd do the second tranche of a billion dollars and he didn't fire his his chief prosecutor? And because I have the confidence of the president, I was there.
Said, I'm not signing it. Until you fire him, we're not signing it, man. Get it straight. We're not doing it. Till you form a new government and you actually bring in someone who will move on this, we're not playing.
Not because we're trying to play hardball, because we know if they give an excuse to the EU, there are at least five countries right now that wanna say, woah, want out. At least five right now. And so what we put together, we're putting together now, is a basic detailed road map of who goes first and who goes second. And there's two pieces of this, folks. One is the security guarantees that are to flow from Russia, and two, the political steps that Ukraine has to take.
And some of the steps are very difficult to take. They've already done the energy piece, they've done some other things, but my point is that when you say the dumb boss is gonna have a special status and you're gonna amend your constitution, it's like saying, okay, you know, Texas and Wyoming Texas is gonna have a special status that we don't want because we want Mexico to have more influence in Texas. And we're gonna pass that through the United States Congress. So there's some really tough stuff they've gotta do. They're willing I'm convinced they will do it.