reSee.it - Related Post Feed

TaranQ
Posted - September 19, 2022 at 1:07 PM
Saved - February 27, 2024 at 9:02 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The West's claim of an unprovoked attack in the Ukraine crisis is questioned due to evidence suggesting prior knowledge and preparation. Various sources, including books, reports, speeches, and statements, indicate awareness of the conflict and potential consequences. The involvement of NATO, US senators, German Chancellor, and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel is highlighted, along with admissions by NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg. American meddling in Ukraine is also discussed, including planning a counteroffensive and providing assistance in various sectors. The New York Times article reveals CIA involvement in supporting Ukraine against Russia. These posts challenge the narrative of an unprovoked Russian attack and raise questions about the West's intentions.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇦🇷🇺🧵 How can the West call the Ukraine crisis an unprovoked attack? When a lot shows that the West very well knew and prepared for this war years ahead. Let's take a look who already knew what. 1/

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

"The Grand Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezinski. Short : Western Continental Europe and Japan to serve as a (possibly military) springboard for the subjugation of the Euro-Asian continent, with the main prize being: subjugation of Russia and China. https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/BD/BD4CE651B07CCB8CB069F9999F0EADEE_Zbigniew_Brzezinski_-_The_Grand_ChessBoard.pdf 2/

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇸The RAND report The US proxy war in Ukraine and the sanctions imposed on Russia will destroy the German and EU economies according to a Rand Corporation report from Jan 2022. They knew and went ahead anyway. https://redpill78.substack.com/p/newly-leaked-report-from-rand-corporation 4/

Newly Leaked Report From Rand Corporation Reveals The True Motives Behind European Destabilization & The Russia/Ukraine War "Weakening Germany, strengthening the U.S." redpill78.substack.com

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇸Back in 2016 Lindsey Graham and John McCain visited Ukraine and held a speech in front of Ukrainian soldiers, telling them you're fight is our fight, we (USA) will push the case against Russia and "enough with the Russian aggression" It means they knew and never wanted peace 5/

Video Transcript AI Summary
We will fight against Russian aggression in 2017. We are committed to supporting you to win.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Your fight is our fight. 2017 would be the year of offense. All of us will go back to Washington, and we will push the case against Russia. Enough of our Russian aggression. It is time for them to pay a heavier price. Speaker 1: I believe you will win. I am convinced you will win, and we will do everything we can to provide you with what you need to win.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇳NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg: "Actually NATO and allies have been there since 2014, trained, equipped and supported the Ukrainian Armed Forces." Against what exactly? There was no Russian invasion in 2014. 6/

Video Transcript AI Summary
NATO Allies have increased military support for Ukraine since 2014, with a focus on transitioning to modern NATO standard equipment and building defense institutions. The commitment is to provide assistance for as long as needed.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: To step up support for Ukraine. As you know, NATO Allies provide unprecedented level of military support to Ukraine. Actually, NATO Allies and NATO have been there since 2014, trained, equipped, and supported the Ukrainian Armed Forces. But, of course, since the invasion in February, allies have stepped up significantly, and we also agreed, a comprehensive assistance package, also on how to help Ukraine to move from Soviet air equipment to more modern NATO standard equipment, and also how to provide more support also for the longer term, building defense and security institutions in Ukraine. The message was that we will provide support for as long as it takes.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇩🇪 German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: Germany and USA have already, before the start of the war, put together an extensive set of sanctions that will directly have an effect. How can you start thinking talking about sanctions against an unprovoked invasion before it even started? 7/

Video Transcript AI Summary
Deutschland und die USA haben vor dem Krieg den Großteil der Sanktionen gegen Russland vorbereitet, die viele Länder sofort wirksam werden ließen. Germany and the USA, along with many other countries, prepared and imposed sanctions against Russia before the outbreak of war, which took immediate effect.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Und Deutschland hat ja zusammen mit den USA noch vor Kriegsausbruch den großen Teil der Sanktionen vorbereitet, so viele Länder Sanktionen verhängen gegen Russland, die unmittelbar wirksam sind.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇩🇪 Another clip of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz saying the same thing in the parliament (somewhere around end of May). Sanctions have been carefully prepared for months. 8/

Video Transcript AI Summary
Germany has been providing tanks, air defense weapons, equipment, and ammunition to Ukraine since the start of the war. The European Union is also giving one billion in military aid. Together with international partners, sanctions have been imposed in great detail to target the right people and have a significant impact. Translation: Since the beginning of the war, Germany has been supplying tanks, air defense weapons, equipment, and ammunition to Ukraine. The European Union is providing an additional one billion in military aid. Along with our international partners, we have imposed unprecedented sanctions that have been meticulously prepared to target the right individuals and have a meaningful effect.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Seit Kriegsbeginn liefert Deutschland Panzer- und Luftabwehrwaffen, Ausrüstung und Munition an die Ukraine. Die Europäische Union stellt zusätzlich eine Milliarde an Militärhilfe bereit. Gemeinsam mit unseren internationalen Partnern haben wir Sanktionen verhängt, die ihresgleichen suchen. Über Monate hinweg haben wir sie bis ins kleinste Detail vorbereitet, damit sie die Richtigen treffen, damit sie wirken.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇸1997: Joe Biden speaking about vigorous, hostile reaction from Russia 🇷🇺 will be due to the expansion of NATO. "The one place where the greatest consternation would be caused... would be to admit the Baltic states [into NATO]." The US voiced the risks. And did it anyway. 9/

Video Transcript AI Summary
In the short term, admitting the Baltic states to NATO could cause significant tension in US-Russian relations. This move might provoke a strong and hostile reaction from Russia, potentially tipping the balance towards conflict. The speaker believes that this decision could have serious consequences.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think the one place where the greatest consternation would be caused in the short term for admission. Having nothing to do with the merit and preparedness of the country's command would be to admit the Baltic states now in terms of NATO, Russian, US Russian relations. And if there was ever anything that was going to tip the balance were to be tipped in terms of a vigorous and hostile reaction. I don't mean military in Russia. It would be that. So the way I look at the calculus here

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

John Mearsheimer september 2015 on how the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path. What we're doing is encouraging the Ukrainians to play tough with the Russians. If the Ukrainians play along their country will be wrecked. 10/

Video Transcript AI Summary
Encouraging a neutral Ukraine would benefit all parties involved and prevent the country from being destroyed. It is in the best interest of the United States, Russia, and Ukraine to resolve the crisis quickly.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If they do that, the end result is that their country is going to 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 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.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

In 1999, at the UN, Zhirinovsky said true things that time itself confirms to be true. “The war will be on the territory of Ukraine for Crimea. In Transcaucasia, the West will support the Armenians against Baku. And then, on the contrary, supported Tbilisi against Abkhazia.” 11/

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses potential conflicts in Ukraine, Crimea, the Caucasus, and NATO's involvement. They criticize the West for instigating wars and claim that NATO's main goal is war with Russia. The speaker portrays the West as a decaying continent that thrives at the expense of the rest of the world, sending troops to the East while enjoying luxury. They argue that Western countries initiate wars and then talk about democracy.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Война будет на территории Украины за Крым, в Закавказье Запад поддержит армян против Баку и поддержит, наоборот, Тбилиси против Абхазии. Но НАТО будет это делать, я вам это говорю. Здесь, в центре Европы, у НАТО нет других планов, кроме ведения войны. И главная цель война с Россией. Запад загнивающий континент, паразит континента. Умирающий, он мучает весь мир. Он живет хорошо, потому что вся планета мучается. Шесть миллиардов мучаются, чтобы здесь 500 миллионов шиковали, пили шампанское, в красивых залах сидели, рассуждали о мире и в это время посылали свои войска на Восток. Запад ставил все войны, все войны были из Европы, никогда в мире ни одна страна не нападала на другую. Запад, когда бомбит, потом говорит о демократии.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

Further statements in the video: NATO wants to wage a war in the middle of Europe, that is their purpose. Your goal is to wage war with Russia. The West is a decaying continent, a parasite, a dying continent, tormenting the whole world... 11A/

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

... subjugating 6 billion people so that 500 million of them can live smart, drink champagne, sit in fancy halls and discuss the world. 11B/

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

Apparently Zelensky also knew very well what he wants planning to do. 12/

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇦🧵 Part of Zelensky's first Press conference October 11, 2019

Video Transcript AI Summary
Today we are in a state of war, our army is ready to fight. We will go to Donbas with war, take back our territories by force, regardless of the casualties. We are prepared to take direct action in the occupied territories.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Цього дня у нас воєнний стан, у нас війна, у нас ми будемо воювати, у нас армія готова, ми підемо на Донбас з війною, ми заберемо війною і військовими свої території, і нам не все одно скільки людей загинуть, але ми готові, щоб отримати і повернути свою землю, ми готові на прямі дії на окупованих територіях.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

13/ 🇺🇳 Again NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg (March 2022) : The US and NATO have been supporting Ukraine for many years. One could ask : what for?

Video Transcript AI Summary
NATO and allies like the US, Canada, UK, and Turkey have long supported Ukraine with equipment and training. After Russia's invasion, support has increased with billions in weapons and aid. NATO's focus is on protecting allies and preventing further escalation of the war. Russia's aggression was anticipated, given past actions like the invasion of Georgia and annexation of Crimea. NATO has been preparing since Russia's first invasion of Ukraine in 2014, increasing defense spending and deploying modern capabilities.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For many years, NATO and NATO allies have supported Ukraine. In particular, the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and also Turkey. Providing equipment and training for tens of 1,000 of Ukrainian soldiers. We see the difference this is making every day on the battlefield. Since Russia's invasion, we have significantly stepped up our support with 1,000,000,000 of dollars of weapons and other assistance to help Ukraine uphold its right to self defense enshrined in the UN Charter. NATO's main responsibility is to protect all allies and prevent this war from escalating, causing even greater death and destruction. We may have been shocked by Russia's brutal invasion, But we should not be surprised. This invasion was one of the best predicted acts of military aggression ever. In NATO, we shared intelligence and we made the intelligence public for many months to warn about Putin's plans. Russia's attack on Ukraine is part of a pattern over many years where Moscow uses military force to achieve its political aims. The destruction of Grozny, the invasion of Georgia, the annexation of Crimea, the bombing of Aleppo, and now the war in Ukraine. Since the first invasion of Ukraine in 2014, NATO has been adapting and preparing with increased defense spending and invested in modern capabilities. We deployed

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

14/ "Here’s the top adviser of Zelensky in 2019 talking about how their plan to join NATO will prompt Russia to invade Ukraine.“They must do this before we join NATO.” Our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia.Who calls this an “unprovoked war?" https://rumble.com/v11ho75-the-ukraine-war-foretold.html

Video Transcript AI Summary
Если Украина вступит в НАТО, Россия может начать крупные военные операции против нее. Вступление в НАТО приведет к войне, а отказ - к поглощению Россией. Выбор стоит между войной с Россией и вступлением в НАТО после победы. Планы включают воздушные операции, вторжения, осаду Киева и диверсии. Вероятность войны - 99%, критический период 2021-2022. Translation: If Ukraine joins NATO, Russia may start major military operations against it. Joining NATO leads to war, while refusal leads to Russian absorption. The choice is between war with Russia and NATO membership after victory. Plans include air operations, invasions, siege of Kyiv, and sabotage. Probability of war - 99%, critical period 2021-2022.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Если Украина получается выдача в НАТО, то тогда мы можем говорить о каких-то сроках прекращения войны? Speaker 1: Нет, о каких сроках прекращения войны мы не будем говорить. Наоборот, скорее всего, это подтолкнет крупные военные операции России против Украины. Потому что они должны нас будут просадить в инфраструктурном отношении и превратить здесь всё в разваленную территорию, для того, чтобы нас неохота. То есть Speaker 0: Россия сможет уйти на прямую конфронтацию с экономикой? Конечно, Россия. Speaker 1: Не НАТО. Они должны это сделать до того, как мы вступим в НАТО, чтобы мы не были интересны НАТО. Перестали быть интересны, как разваленная территория. С вероятностью 999% наша цена за вступление НАТО это большая война совсем. А если мы не вступим в НАТО, это поглощение России в течение 10-12 лет. Вот и вся вилка, в которой мы находимся. А теперь давайте выбирать зеленую. Speaker 0: Подождите, а теперь, если поставить чашу на весё, а что лучше в любом случае? Speaker 1: Конечно, крупная война с Россией и переход в НАТО по результатам победы над Россией. Speaker 0: Что такое может быть крупная война с Россией? Speaker 1: Воздушная операция наступательная, вторжение российских армий, которые они создали на наших границах, осада Киева, попытка окружить войска, которые в АТО находят, в операции Объединенный Сил. Прорыв через Крымский перешейк, выход на Новокаховское водохранилище, чтобы воду в Крым дать. Наступление с территории Беларуси, создание новых народных республик, диверсий, удары по объектам критической инфраструктуры и так далее. Воздушно-десантные вот что такое полноценная война. И вероятность ее 99 Speaker 0: %. Когда? Speaker 1: 21-22, самое критический. 20-22, самое критический.
The Ukraine war FORETOLD Zelensky's Adviser, Oleksiy Arestovych, confirms that a full-scale war with Russia was pre-planned and desired by the Ukrainian regime for the purpose of joining NATO as far back as in 2019 when this rumble.com

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

15/ 🇺🇸 US Sensor John McCain in December 2013 proudly recording the orchestrated protests that later in 2014 would turn into the so-called revolution on the Maidan in, which in fact as we all know now was a coup. (See tweet 5 in this thread)

Video Transcript AI Summary
We never saw it. It's about 2.5 million people in the center of Kyiv singing the national anthem of Ukraine.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We never saw it. No. It's lost time. It's about 2 and a half, 100,000 people in the center of Kyiv Sydney, Hymn of Ukraine. How many?

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

16/ Ukraine Crisis - What You're Not Being Told https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWkfpGCAAuw

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

17/ 🇺🇳🇺🇸🇬🇧🇨🇦🇺🇦 Another confirmation by NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg that NATO allies have been training the Ukrainian military since 2014. In particular, the US, Canada and the UK "Unprovoked aggresion"... Just saying

Video Transcript AI Summary
NATO allies like the US, UK, and Canada have been training Ukrainian forces since 2014, following the annexation of Crimea. Other EU and NATO members have also been involved. For example, the UK has provided training support.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But, fundamentally, we speak about the same nations providing training to Ukrainian forces. NATO allies have provided training to Ukrainian forces since 2014. In particular, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, have, conducted significant training in Ukraine since the legal annexation of Crimea, but also some, EU, NATO members have been part of these efforts. And then for instance, in in the United Kingdom, where they were already trained

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇷🇺🇺🇦🇩🇪🧵 Another addition is the fact that Angela Merkel now admits that the Minsk peace agreements were never meant to establish peace, but just to give Ukraine time to prepare for the war against Russia. So far for the trustworthiness of the West.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇷🇺🇺🇦🇩🇪 Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel in an interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit: "The 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. They used that time to get stronger, which you can see today. Ukraine of 2014/15 is not Ukraine of today. 1/3

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇷🇺🇺🇦🧵 A must watch EXCLUSIVE‼️: November 2013, days before the EuroMaidan protests started. A deputy denounces in the Ukrainian Parliament that the US is preparing a civil war in Ukraine, and that alleged "NGOs" are organising a coup from inside the US Embassy in Kiev. 1/2

Video Transcript AI Summary
Украинский народный депутат сообщил о проекте Тинькофф, поддерживаемом посольством США, направленном на разжигание гражданской войны. Активисты обнаружили подготовку специалистов по информационным войнам и дискредитации СМИ для свержения режима. Американские инструкторы обучали использованию соцсетей для влияния на общественное мнение и активизации протестов.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Уважаемые коллеги, Уважаемые Владимир Васильевич! Ко мне как народному депутату Украины обратились активисты общественной организации Воля, которые предоставили свидетельства того, что на территории нашего государства при поддержке и при непосредственном участии посольства США осуществляется проект техком в рамках которого ведется подготовка к разжиганию гражданской войны на Украине. Проект Тинькофф направлен на подготовку специалистов по информационным войнам и дискредитации государственных современных медиа, потенциальных революционеров, для организации протестных действий, свержения государственного режима проект находится под патронатом и кураторством в Москва Соединенных Штатов в Украине где припай это. Пообщавшись с активистами организации Воля я выяснил что некоторым из них под видом специалистов по IT-технологиям удалось попасть на мероприятия, которые проходили в техконтурах. К их удивлению под видом обучения особенностям использования современных медиа американские инструкторы рассказывали об использовании социальных сетей и интернет-технологий для целенаправленного влияния на общественное мнение, активизации протестного потенциала с целью организации силовых акций на территории Украины, радикализации борьбы за власть. В качестве примеров американские инструкторы проводили примеры использования социальных сетей для организации и управления уличных

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

Source and full video : https://odysee.com/@BacktoBasics:e/Oleg-Tsaryov-in-Ukrainian-Parlament-2013:1 2/2

Video Transcript AI Summary
Выпускники комплексов в Египте, Тунисе и Ливии проводят семинары в Украине. Организовано пять мероприятий, обучено 300 человек. Последняя конференция техком прошла в посольстве США в Киеве. Возникают вопросы о независимости и суверенитете Украины, касательно проведения мероприятий на территории посольства США. Обращение в правоохранительные органы Украины с запросом на расследование. Translation: Graduates from complexes in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya are holding seminars in Ukraine. Five events have been organized, training 300 people. The latest tech conference took place at the US Embassy in Kyiv. Concerns arise about Ukraine's independence and sovereignty regarding events held at the US Embassy. A request to Ukrainian law enforcement for an investigation.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Нациями в Египте, Тунисе, Ливии выпускники этих комплексов сейчас проводят свои семинары по территории Украины. Всего было проведено пять мероприятий, обучено около 300 человек, которые сегодня работают по всей Украине. Последняя конференция техком состоялась 14-15 ноября Киеве, прямо на территории посольства Соединенных Штатов Америки. Вы мне скажите, где еще в какой стране мира неправительственная организация будет работать и проводить свои мероприятия прямо на территории посольства Соединенных Штатов? Это неуважение к государству Украины, к народу Украины. Я обращаюсь в правоохранительные органы Украины с таким вопросом не нарушают ли посольства США, которые организуют конференции техком и представляют для их проведения дипломатические Говорите. Декларация ООН 21 декабря 1965 года о недопустимости вмешательства во внутренние дела государства. А значит их независимость и суверенитета, в частности статей 1, 2 и 5. Я прошу считать мое обращение официальным запросом и провести расследование по вышеуказанным данным. Спасибо.
Oleg Anatolyevich Tsaryov in Ukrainian Parlament, predicting the war and U.S. involvement - November 2013 A "must watch" exclusive video: odysee.com

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇷🇺🇺🇦🇩🇪🧵 Flashback to 9 May 2014. German correspondent reports on Phoenix from Donetsk: 🗣️ Dear viewers, we'll switch to Armin Coerper in a moment. He is currently in Ukraine, specifically in Donetsk. Armin, there was this incident last night in which three people were killed and possibly 13 injured. There have been arrests. What do you know about the process, about the course of this event? 🎤 So this event took place in the city of mariopol, at a military base of the new Ukrainian National Guard. We hear about 300 pro Russian activists with Molotov cocktails and it is said that they were armed, tried to storm this base and the Ukrainian soldiers first fired warning shots and then defended themselves. As far as we know, at least three people lost their lives. Some agencies are even talking about four deaths, but we can't confirm that yet. The crucial question for me here today is, if the victims are actually Ukrainian citizens and there are many indications that this is the case, then the Kiev government had its own people shot that night. 🗣️ What consequences would that have with regard to the talks in Geneva? 🎤 Well, first of all, Moscow has been pursuing the goal of questioning the moral integrity of this government for quite some time. It is repeatedly described as illegitimate and it is played with to portray this government as a puppet of the West and not as a representative of the Ukrainian people. If they shoot at their people now, of course, then this confirms that this strategy is fatal. We remember that in February, then-President Viktor Jannokovic was ousted from office because he had his people shot at. For the talks in Geneva, this means that the position of the Ukrainian government is of course becoming weaker, especially in the east of the country. To be honest, people here tell me we don't listen anymore. 🗣️Does that basically mean that Donetsk is the region you are in now that Armin is practically handed over? 🎤 I wouldn't say the region is handed over. We always saw in the first few days that an impressively small number of activists stormed and occupied these government buildings. In Donetsk, this is limited to one or two government buildings in the surrounding streets, life goes on as normal. In other cities like Slaviansk, Kramatorsk, the picture is different. These cities are in the hands of pro-Russian activists. What strikes me is that at the beginning I always had the impression that this large, silent majority is now running more and more into the arms of the pro-Russian activists and that is fueled by the fact that the government is carrying out this military operation and that with really martial rhetoric can be accompanied. 🗣️ Armin Coerper was from eastern Ukraine, more precisely from Donetsk. Thank you for this information

Video Transcript AI Summary
In der Ukraine gab es einen Zwischenfall in Mariupol, bei dem prorussische Aktivisten eine Militärbasis angriffen. Es gab Tote und Verletzte. Die Regierung könnte auf ihr eigenes Volk geschossen haben. Dies könnte die Position der Regierung schwächen und die Gespräche in Genf beeinflussen. In Donezk halten prorussische Aktivisten Regierungsgebäude besetzt. In anderen Städten wie Slawjansk und Kramatorsk kontrollieren sie bereits die Stadt. Die Bevölkerung scheint sich ihnen anzuschließen, da die Regierung einen Militäreinsatz durchführt.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Liebe Zuschauer, wir schalten gleich weiter zu Armin Körper. Er ist in der Ukraine zurzeit, genauer gesagt in Donezk. Armin, da hat es ja gestern Abend diesen Zwischenfall gegeben, bei dem drei Menschen getötet worden sind und womöglich dreizehn verletzt. Es hat Festnahmen gegeben. Was wissen Sie über den Vorgang, über den Hergang dieses Ereignisses? Speaker 1: Also dieses Ereignis hat sich in der Stadt Mariupol abgespielt an einer Militärbasis der neuen ukrainischen Nationalgarde. Wir hören, dass etwa dreihundert prorussische Aktivisten Molotowcocktails und es heißt, sie seien bewaffnet gewesen, diese diese Basis zu stürmen versucht haben. Und die ukrainischen Soldaten hätten zunächst Warnschüsse abgegeben und sich dann verteidigt. Dabei sind, wie wir hören, mindestens drei Menschen ums Leben gekommen. Es ist bei manchen Agenturen sogar die Rede von vier Toten, aber das können wir noch nicht bestätigen. Die entscheidende Frage für mich ist hier heute, wenn es sich bei den Opfern tatsächlich ukrainische Staatsbürger handelt und darauf deutet vieles hin, dann hat die Kiefer Regierung in dieser Nacht auf ihr eigenes Volk schießen lassen. Speaker 0: Was würde das für Konsequenzen haben auch mit Blick auf die Gespräche in Genf? Speaker 1: Zum Ersten muss man sagen, Moskau verfolgt ja seit geraumer Zeit das Ziel, die moralische Integrität dieser Regierung in Zweifel zu ziehen. Sie wird immer wieder als illegitim bezeichnet und man spielt damit diese diese Regierung als Marionetten des Westens und nicht als Vertreter der des ukrainischen Volkes darzustellen. Wenn die jetzt natürlich auf ihr Volk schießen, dann bestätigt das diese Strategie auf fatale Art und Weise. Wir erinnern uns, im Februar wurde der damalige Präsident Viktor Janukowitsch aus seinem Amt gejagt, weil er auf sein Volk hat schießen lassen. Für die Gespräche in Genf heißt das so viel, dass die Position der ukrainischen Regierung natürlich hier insbesondere im Osten des Landes immer schwächer wird. Offengestanden, mir sagen die Leute hier, wir hören da nicht mehr hin. Speaker 0: Heißt das, im Grunde genommen ist Donez, ist diese Region, in der Sie sich jetzt grade befinden, Armin, praktisch schon übergeben? Speaker 1: Ich würd nicht sagen, dass die Region übergeben ist. Wir haben ja in den ersten Tagen immer gesehen, dass eine eine beeindruckend kleine Zahl von Aktivisten diese Regierungsgebäude gestürmt und besetzt gehalten hat. In Donezk beschränkt sich das auf ein, zwei Regierungsgebäude. In den Straßen drumrum geht das Leben ganz normal weiter. In anderen Städten wie Slawjansk, Kramatorsk, da zeigt sich ein anderes Bild. Diese Städte sind in der Hand von prorussischen Aktivisten. Was mir auffällt, ist, dass am Anfang hatte ich immer den Eindruck, diese große, schweigende Mehrheit, die läuft jetzt immer mehr in die Arme der prorussischen Aktivisten und das wird dadurch befeuert, dass die Regierung diesen Militäreinsatz vornimmt und den von wirklich martialischer Rhetorik begleiten lässt. Speaker 0: Armin Körper war das aus der Ostukraine, genauer gesagt aus Donezk. Vielen Dank für diese Information.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇷🇺🇺🇦🇫🇲🧵 NATO Chief Jens Stoltenborg now admits it very openly, the war didn't start in 2022 but in 2014, like I have been saying right from the start of the war. So indirectly he now admits that he and all the others that have been pushing the "unprovoked Russian attack" narrative, that it was nothing more than a lie. Which means that the complete collective West population was being lied to about the reasons behind the start of this war.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The war in Ukraine began in 2014, not 2021. NATO allies supported Ukraine with training and equipment, making their armed forces stronger by 2022. This support was crucial when Putin decided to attack.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Didn't start in February last year. 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. Of course, that made a huge difference when, president Putin, decided to attack

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇸🇷🇺🇺🇦🧵 After the 2016 elections, US senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Amy Klobuchar came to Ukraine with sad snouts and said that Russia attacked the US by rigging the elections. Russia did not falsify the elections, but they did not care. They, or rather their sponsors, needed to sell stale weapons, they urgently needed a war, the beginning of which was slowed down by Trump. - Juan Sinmiedo

Video Transcript AI Summary
We will inform our colleagues about Russia's actions in the Baltics, Ukraine, and Georgia. We plan to make 2017 a year of offense against Putin, who we believe hacked our elections and is undermining democracy worldwide. We advocate for new sanctions targeting Putin personally, his energy and banking sectors. We just visited Ukraine, where we witnessed the impact of Russian interference. We will push for tougher sanctions on Russia for attacking the US through hacking, treating it as an act of war. We urge stronger sanctions on Russia for their attack on the US.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's, gonna go back and tell our colleagues what Russia is up to and the and the Baltics, what they're doing in the Ukraine. We're gonna get briefed about Georgia. We hope to make 2017 a year of offense. We believe that Putin has hacked into our elections in America, that he's trying to undermine democracy all over the world, and it's time for new sanctions to hit him hard as an individual, his energy sector, his banking sector. It is time to push back against Putin, but be a better friend to our allies over here, including Georgia. Speaker 1: This is a very important trip. We just left Ukraine, where we've seen firsthand, what happens, when Russia, crosses over into a country's independence, and we saw it in our own election, with the attempt to influence our election. Speaker 2: We will be working for much tougher sanctions against Russia. They, attacked the United States of America. The hacking was an attack, and we should be treated as such. And we think their financial institutions and other aspects of the Russian economy should be addressed and we will strongly urge our colleagues to enact more meaningful and stronger sanctions against Russia because of their attack on the United States of America.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇸🇷🇺🇺🇦🧵American meddling in Ukraine 1/4 US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland said that Washington has been helping to plan a Ukrainian "counteroffensive" against Russia for almost half a year. “As we plan the counter-offensive, which we have been working on with you for about 4-5 months, we are already starting our discussions with the Ukrainian government and with friends in Kiev – both from the civilian side and from the military side – about the long-term future of Ukraine,” Nuland said at the Kiev Security Forum via video link from the State Department.

Video Transcript AI Summary
We are preparing for a counter offensive with Ukraine that we have been planning for 4 or 5 months. At the same time, we are starting talks with the Ukrainian government and officials in Kyiv about the country's future.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And even as you plan for the counter offensive, which we have been working on with you for some 4 or 5 months. We are already beginning our discussions, with the Ukrainian government and with friends in Kyiv, both in the civilian side and on the military side about Ukraine's long term future.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇸🇷🇺🇺🇦🧵American meddling in Ukraine 2/4 In 2016, Victoria Nuland told Congress that American advisers work in 12 Ukrainian ministries, US-trained police officers work in 18 Ukrainian cities, the US Treasury helped close 60 Ukrainian banks, and the US spent $266 million to train Ukrainian soldiers.

Video Transcript AI Summary
US advisers assist in various Ukrainian ministries and localities to improve services, combat fraud, enhance tax collection, and modernize institutions. Trained police officers patrol 18 cities, legal aid attorneys secure acquittals, and advisors help close failed banks. Over $266 million in security sector support has trained soldiers and National Guard personnel, providing essential gear. Ongoing efforts in FY 'sixteen focus on training and equipping more border guards, military, and coast guard personnel.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And US advisers serve in almost a dozen Ukrainian ministries and localities, helping to deliver services, eliminate fraud and abuse, improve tax collection, and modernize Ukrainian institutions. With US help, newly vetted and trained police officers are patrolling the cities, the streets of 18 Ukrainian cities. In courtrooms across Ukraine, free legal aid attorneys funded by the US have won 2 thirds of all the acquittals in the countries. Treasury and State Department Advisors have helped Ukraine shutter over 60 failed banks and protected the assets of depositors. And since there can be no reform in Ukraine without security, over $266,000,000 of our support has been in security sector, training 1200 soldiers and 750 Ukrainian National Guard personnel and supplying lifesaving gear. In FY 'sixteen, we are continuing that training and equipment of more of Ukraine's border guards, military and coast guard.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇸🇷🇺🇺🇦🧵American meddling in Ukraine 3/4 In 2013, Victoria Nuland stated that the US had invested $5 billion since 1991 to help Ukraine achieve its European ambitions: “Since Ukraine gained independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians in their development of democratic skills and institutions, and in promoting civic participation and good governance, which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Since 1991, the US has supported Ukraine in building democratic institutions and promoting civic participation and good governance. Over $5 billion has been invested to help Ukraine achieve its European aspirations for a secure, prosperous, and democratic future.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We've invested over $5,000,000,000 to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇸🇷🇺🇺🇦🧵 American meddling in Ukraine 4/4 The cooking up of the "Ukrainian deal": EuroMaidan, the US narrative challenged. Featuring Barak Obama, John Kerry, Jen Psaky and the Ukrainian "democratic" opposition. Special guest Victoria Nulan: "That would be great I think, to help glue these thing and have the UN help glue it and you know, fuck the EU". - Juan Sinmiedo

Video Transcript AI Summary
We are involved in Ukraine, supporting democracy. Negotiating restructuring the government for opposition voices. Truce broken by sniper shooting, suspected to be from new coalition. Concerns about lack of investigation into sniper attacks on both sides.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We have been actively engaged in what's been happening in the Ukraine. Speaker 1: These, brave Ukrainians took to the streets in order to stand peacefully against tyranny and to demand democracy. Speaker 0: Not only has our embassy and our folks who are over there, folks like Vice President Biden, have spoken directly to President Yanukovych about our belief there has to be a way to restructure the Ukrainian government in a way that allows the voices of the opposition and those folks on the streets to be heard in preparation for some sort of democratic process. A government with greater legitimacy and unity. And that's going to be challenging, but we're trying to help on the negotiations on that. Speaker 2: What do you think? Speaker 1: I think we're in play. Speaker 2: So that would great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it and, you know, fuck the EU. Speaker 3: There is a difference between private discussions that happen in the interagency process, in the building, and what we convey publicly as a US government, and we have a responsibility to convey what our position is. Of course, you're discussing a range of options on a range of issues. Speaker 4: The truce didn't last long. Speaker 1: From one Speaker 4: of the upper windows of the hotel, a shot rang out. Up there. Okay. Yeah. That window, 1, 2, 3, 4th row from the left, 2nd from the top, one that was open. I saw the shooter. He was wearing one of the protesters' green helmets. Speaker 2: They were shooting directly to their heart, their brain, and to their neck. Speaker 5: Alright. She's saying the use of deadly force by qualified snipers, and she's judging that on the way that, the round struck their victims, killing them instantly. Well, well, reportedly Speaker 6: reportedly, 20 policemen, were killed today by snipers, and I saw TV footage, snipers, shooting from, a hotel. They took over in downtown Kyiv. Speaker 7: If you're saying privately behind discussions are sensitive and you don't want everything to come out, but those are 2 totally different things. I understand that diplomatic discussions are sensitive, and you don't want everything to come out, but those are 2 totally different totally different positions. Speaker 3: Elise, what do you think happens behind closed doors when people are discussing issues internally through the intelligence team? Speaker 7: Discussing issues. This is talking about a deal that the US was cooking up. Speaker 8: And second, what was quite disturbing, the same Olga told that, well, all the evidence shows, the people who were killed by snipers from both sides among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides. Speaker 2: Well, that yeah. So Speaker 8: So that and then she also showed me some photos. She said that has medical doctor. She can, you know, say that it is the same same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it's really disturbing that now the new, new coalition that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened. So that there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers, they were it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇸🇷🇺🇺🇦🧵 Biden in 1997, pretty alive and kicking yet, about provoking Russia by admitting the Baltic states into NATO. Boy, they've been poking the bear for decades! - Juan Sinmiedo https://t.co/YvRMTMfAbm

Video Transcript AI Summary
Admitting the Baltic states to NATO could cause significant tension in US-Russian relations, potentially leading to a hostile reaction from Russia. This move could tip the balance and escalate the situation.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think the one place where the greatest consternation would be caused in the short term for admission, Having nothing to do with the merit and preparedness of the country's command would be to admit the Baltic states now in terms of NATO Russian, US Russian relations. And if there was ever anything that was going to tip the balance were it to be tipped in terms of a vigorous and hostile reaction. I don't mean military in Russia. It would be that. So the way I look at the calculus here

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇸🇷🇺🧵 US chauvinism & warmongering is so ingrained that @AdamSchiff can openly declare, in Jan 2020, that US uses Ukraine to “fight Russia over there,” and our elites applaud. Fast forward two years later when Russia fights back, and the same circle is outraged. -Aaron Maté https://t.co/RrscawngJp

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇸🇺🇦🇷🇺 The ULTIMATE post in this thread. A thread with the New York Times article : The Spy War, How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin That shows that the U.S. was very well involved, and much further back than 2022. https://t.co/hxFBVVrE0Q

@TaranQ - Jos Quinten

🇺🇸🇷🇺🇺🇦🧵 ⚡ BREAKING⚡ New York Times: The Spy War, How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin. So now they openly admit that it WASN'T an unprovoked attack! It's a long read so I decided to pour it into a thread. #Ukraine #Russia #UkraineRussiaWar #CIA #Truth https://t.co/FBJgtbtYE4

KanekoaTheGreat
Posted - February 8, 2023 at 7:31 PM
Saved - February 10, 2023 at 6:10 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline has been a topic of controversy, with the US and Germany at odds over its construction. Recently, there have been reports of sabotage, with the CIA warning of possible attacks on the pipelines. Some have speculated that the US government may have been involved in the sabotage, with the Navy and NATO holding a training exercise in the area where the pipelines were later sabotaged. The situation is further complicated by the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, with some suggesting that the sabotage may be part of a larger proxy war.

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

THREAD🚨 #Nordstream "Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that..." https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now seymourhersh.substack.com

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

2) BIDEN: “If Russia invades...then there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." REPORTER: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?" BIDEN: "I promise you, we will be able to do that." Feb. 7, 2022

Video Transcript AI Summary
If Russia invades Ukraine, Nord Stream 2 will be canceled. Germany will take action to halt the project. However, it is unclear how they will do this since Germany has control over the project.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me answer the first question first. If Germany if, if Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be, we there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring it into Speaker 1: But how will you, how will you do that? Exactly. Since the project in control of the project is within Germany's controls?

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

3) Victoria Nuland: “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward." Jan. 27, 2022

Video Transcript AI Summary
We are in ongoing discussions with Germany about Nord Stream 2. It is important to note that if Russia invades Ukraine, Nord Stream 2 will not proceed.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: With regard to Nord Stream 2, we continue to have, very strong and clear conversations, with our German allies, and I want to be clear with you today. If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

4) @TuckerCarlson: "If you were Vladimir Putin, you would have to be a suicidal moron to blow up your own energy pipelines. Natural gas pipelines are the main source of your power and your wealth and most critically your leverage over other countries. Europe needs your energy."

Video Transcript AI Summary
Vladimir Putin would never blow up his own energy pipelines as they are crucial for Russia's power and leverage over other countries. However, other countries, including the US, have suggested the possibility of sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines. Joe Biden and Toria Nuland both hinted at stopping Nord Stream if Russia invades Ukraine. While it's hard to believe that the Biden administration would engage in such extreme actions, close allies like Radek Sikorski have thanked the US for the pipeline explosions. The White House has not denied responsibility and instead emphasizes the need for clean energy and reducing gas consumption. If the Biden administration is indeed responsible, it would be a destructive act consistent with their tendency to tear down rather than build.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Vladimir Putin, you would have to be a suicidal moron to blow up your own energy pipelines. That's the one thing you would never do. Natural gas pipelines are the main source of your power and your wealth and most critically, your leverage over other countries. Europe needs your energy, now more than ever with winter approaching. If you can't deliver that energy, then countries like Germany have no need to pay attention to what to want. You're in the middle of a war, an all hands on deck war, so you need all the leverage you can get. Under these circumstances, there is no chance you would blow up Nord Stream 1 or 2, not now, obviously. In fact, it's so obvious that even as our famously dim Terry of State Tony Blinken seemed to acknowledge it. Sabotaging Nord Stream, he said today, is clearly in no one's interest. Right. But really only half right. It is true that blowing up Nord Stream does not help Vladimir Putin. He would not do that. Why would he? But that doesn't mean that other countries wouldn't consider doing it. They would consider it, and we know they have considered it because at least one of them has said so in public. In early February, less than 3 weeks before the war in Ukraine began, Joe Biden suggested on camera that he might take out these pipelines. Watch. Speaker 1: 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 Norristown too. We we will bring it into Speaker 2: Would you but how will you how will you do that exactly since the project in control of the project is within Germany's Speaker 1: We will, I promise you, we'll be able to do it. Speaker 0: Notice how he phrased that. And he's the president. Doesn't phrase things by accident, particularly when he's reading off cards. He didn't say, I will pause the delivery of gas from Russia to Germany. He said, there won't be a Nord Stream 2. We'll put an end to it. We'll take it out. We'll blow it up. How will you do this? He was asked. I promise you, we will be able to do it. They thought this through. And yet those watching, very much including us, didn't take Biden seriously when he said it. This is the president who has declared climate change the most pressing emergency in This is the man who lectures you about using a wood stove or driving an SUV because of its emissions. This is the guy who spent 1,000,000,000 trying to mitigate cow flatulence, because methane. Would that guy really blow up a methane pipeline in the middle of the Baltic Sea? It was hard to imagine. That would be an unimaginably reckless act. That'd be the kind of thing you would do if you wanted to start a nuclear war. It would be insane. And yet, in retrospect, it's obvious they were thinking about this because Joe Biden wasn't the only person to suggest it. Toria Nuland at the State Department said pretty much the same thing. Nuland is a lifelong war cheerleader. She worked to bring about the Iraq invasion, never apologized, kept going. She helped engineer the coup that overthrew the Ukrainian government, some years back. So capable. Clearly, she's capable of anything. But environmental terrorism? Even for Toria Nuland, that seemed too much, too extreme. And yet here she is in January. Speaker 3: With regard to Nord Stream 2, we continue to have, very strong and clear conversations, With our German allies, and I wanna be clear with you today. If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or Another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward. Speaker 0: One way or the other, We'll stop Nord Stream. Now looking back, those words seem chilling 8 months later as natural gas pours into the Baltic Sea and into the atmosphere. So you have to ask, could the Biden administration really do something like this? We can't say for sure. We don't know for sure. We can tell you that close Allies of the Biden White House believe they certainly did do it. Radek Sikorski is a Polish politician. He's chairman of the EU USA delegation in the European Parliament. He's connected. He's also the husband of regime stenographer Ann Applebaum of The Atlantic Magazine. Sikorsky is so close to Joe Biden that he's got a picture of the 2 of them together in his Twitter profile. So when the pipelines blew up, Sikorsky responded immediately. And here's what he wrote. Thank you, USA. So once again, did the Biden administration really do this? It's hard to believe. Given that it's an atrocity, It's effectively an act of terrorism. We don't wanna make that accusation. But we should tell you that, maybe not coincidentally, Today, a brand new pipeline was unveiled. The pipeline that carries non Russian natural gas in roughly the same area as Nord Stream's 1 and 2. This is called the Baltic Pipe. It was inaugurated in Poland. It will carry natural gas from Norway through Denmark to Poland and other countries nearby. And it's likely to do very well since now It has less competition. Making sense? What does the White House say about this? How are they accounting for what happened today? Well, they're not exactly enthusiastically denying responsibility for it. Instead, they're looking at the upside. Here's the president's publicist noting that the destruction of yet another Energy pipeline is yet another opportunity for you to buy an electric car. Speaker 2: As you all know, these pipelines weren't pumping gas into Europe At this time, NS 2 was never operational, as you guys know. NS 1 has not been operational for weeks because, Putin has weaponized, energy. And we have said this many times before. This just drives home the importance of our efforts to work together to get alternative gas Supplies to Europe and to support efforts to reduce gas consumption and accelerate true energy independence by moving to clean energy Economy. Speaker 0: Oh, moving to clean energy, say the people who very may well be responsible for letting methane into the Baltic Sea and into the atmosphere at a scale that most people can't imagine. The people lecturing you about your SUV may have blown up a natural gas pipeline and created one of the great catastrophes of our time and its effect on the environment. If they did this, this will be one of the craziest, most destructive things any American administration has ever done. But it would also be totally consistent with what they do. What do they do? They destroy. These people build nothing. Not one thing. Instead, they tear down and desecrate, from historic statues, to the Constitution, to energy infrastructure. And no one in Congress is trying to stop any of it. They're just preparing for the inevitable fallout.

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

5) The CIA warned authorities in Berlin three months before the Nordstream pipeline was sabotaged of the possibility that someone would destroy the pipelines. I wonder how they knew? https://www.reuters.com/world/cia-warned-berlin-about-possible-attacks-gas-pipelines-summer-spiegel-2022-09-27/

CIA warned Berlin about possible attacks on gas pipelines in summer - Spiegel The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had weeks ago warned Germany about possible attacks on gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea, German magazine Spiegel said on Tuesday, after gas leaks in Russia pipelines to Germany were reported. reuters.com

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

6) The people who told you Iraq has WMDs want you to believe Russia blew up its own pipeline. The US Government previously lied Americans into war using the Gulf of Tonkin, USS Maine, RMS Lusitania, Iraqi incubator babies, and WMDs. But trust them this time.

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

7) The gas pipelines were sabotaged near Bornholm in the Baltic Sea. The leaks occurred in areas where the pipelines lie at sufficiently shallow depths for divers to plant explosives.

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

8) The US Navy and NATO held a major maritime training exercise in the Baltic Sea involving scores of allied ships throughout the region. The event was held off the coast of Bornholm Island and involved teams of divers who happened to be planting and locating explosives.

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

9) The US Navy posted pictures of themselves planting "mock explosives" in the Baltic Sea where the pipelines would explode three months later. But don't worry, it was a "training exercise." https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/3060311/baltops-22-a-perfect-opportunity-for-research-and-testing-new-technology/

BALTOPS 22: A perfect opportunity for research and testing new technology BALTIC SEA - Exercise Baltic Operations (BALTOPS) 22, the premier maritime-focused exercise in the Baltic region, began June 5, 2022, in the Baltic Sea. With a significant focus of BALTOPS every year navy.mil

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

10) Uncle Joe, the climate change warrior, would never blow up a natural gas pipeline in the ocean, right? If Joe truly cared, his son Hunter wouldn't be invested in the world's worst polluting Chinese-government-owned oil, gas, and coal companies. https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/hunter-biden-invested-1-billion-into

Joe Crushes American Energy While Hunter Gets Rich From Chinese Fossil Fuels Joe Biden fights climate change in the United States, while his son's Chinese private equity fund holds investments in Chinese oil giant, Sinopec, which creates more CO2 emissions than all of Canada. kanekoa.substack.com

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

11) Prof. Jeffrey Sachs caused chaos on Bloomberg for suggesting the U.S. government was behind the Nord Stream sabotage. "The destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline which I would bet was a U.S. action..."

Video Transcript AI Summary
The decline in output and living standards has led to a rise in prices in the European economy. The sudden cutoff of energy and the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, which may have been a US and Poland action, have further impacted the situation. Radar evidence suggests that US military helicopters were circling the area, and there were previous threats from the United States to end Nord Stream. Secretary Blinken's statement about it being a tremendous opportunity raises questions. Despite being against the narrative in the West, many people worldwide believe the US is responsible. However, there is a lack of evidence and counterbalance in the media.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The sharp decline of output in living standards also shows up as a rise of prices. But the the main fact is that the European economy is getting hammered by this, by the sudden cutoff of energy. And now, to make it, definitive, the destruction of the the Nord Stream pipeline which I I would bet was a US action, perhaps US and and Poland. This is But, Jeff, we're gonna stop there. That's a that's Quite a statement as well. Why do you feel Absolutely. That that was a US action? What evidence do you have of that? Well, first of all, there's direct radar evidence that US, helicopters, military helicopters that are normally based in Gdansk, were, circling over this area. We also had the threats From the United States earlier in this year that one way or another, we are going to end Nord Stream. We also have a remarkable statement by secretary Blinken last Friday in a press conference that he says, This is also a tremendous opportunity. It's a strange way to it's sorry. It's a strange way to talk if you're worried about the piracy on international infrastructure vital significance. So I know this runs counter to our narrative. It runs you're not allowed to say these things, in in, in the west. But the fact of the matter is All over the world, when I talk to people, they think the US did it. So that's not And and by by the way, even reporters on our Papers that are involved, tell me privately, yeah, well, of course, but it doesn't show up in our our media. Professor, I'm gonna wanna get into a different pat about what Did or did not happen with Nord Stream? Because I don't have the evidence, and we don't have a a counterbalance to this. There is an issue though that's at the

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

12) @JoeRogan and @ComicDaveSmith break down the reasons Russia invaded Ukraine: "The most important priority in the history of humanity is that America and Russia do not go to war."

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses concern about the escalating tensions between the US and Russia, emphasizing the importance of avoiding a nuclear conflict. They mention reports that the US discouraged Ukraine from negotiating with Russia at the beginning of the war, despite having a potential deal in place. The speaker criticizes the official narrative that portrays Vladimir Putin as a madman and a threat to Europe, while also downplaying his nuclear threats. They draw parallels to the misrepresentation of Osama bin Laden's motivations and argue for listening to the enemy's perspective. The speaker acknowledges that Putin was wrong to invade Ukraine but argues that there was provocation. They highlight the broken promise of NATO not expanding eastward and the current presence of NATO forces on Russia's border.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This thing with Russia is just like the craziest thing in the world. Like, the idea that we're actually flirting with a nuclear conflict with Russia is the most important priority in the history of humanity, is that America and Russia do not go to war. There's nothing more important than that. That's that's it. We'll destroy the the human species if we do this. And yet, there's this war right on Russia's border and there's no effort to negotiate going on. There's, like, no effort. In fact, from from very, solid reporting that actually, America through Boris Johnson in in it, told Ukraine not to negotiate with Russia at the very beginning of the war, when they had a deal worked out. They had a they had a deal worked out. It's been reported in multiple sources that they had a deal worked out. And the deal was basically that Vladimir Putin would pull back, he would pull back his troops and leave Ukraine under the condition that the very simple conditions that Ukraine, guaranteed, autonomy for the Donbas region and agreed to never join NATO. And, like, that was a deal. Like, okay. I'm not saying everyone thinks that's the perfect deal, but it's better than what we got right now. Better than nuclear war. And right now, just the other day, dude, the official narrative on this this whole war, it's just like it makes no sense. And, again, like I said, remember, the same people who are pushing this are the ones who are telling you Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and stuff. But The official narrative, Joe, is basically that, okay, so, Vladimir Putin is a madman, a crazy war criminal who's hell bent on, reforming the Soviet Union and this is a real threat that he could do this, but also he's he's getting humiliated in this war in Ukraine. So, like, he's he's losing the poorest country in Europe and he's just getting humiliated and beat back, but he's still a real threat to take over all of Europe. And he's a complete madman, by the way, Joe. But when he says he's gonna use nuclear weapons, don't listen to that. He'd never actually do that even though he's a complete madman. And as everyone says, this this war, the word they use over and over and over again, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, all of them, unprovoked. Vladimir Putin led an unprovoked war in Ukraine. But then, it's just like with Osama Bin Laden, what they did with him then. Don't listen to him. Whatever you do, don't listen to what he's actually saying, because none of that's his motivations. Like, what his motivations are, what we tell you. Osama bin Laden hates us, because we're free. And then, like, Ron Paul would just go, like, yeah. But that's not what he's saying at all. Like, oh, he, Osama bin Laden was so clear about why he hated America. I mean, he's like look, I hate you because you murder innocent civilians in the Muslim world, you prop up brutal dictators in the Muslim world, you prop up Israel who mistreats the Palestinian people, and you have our your, your bases in our holy land in the Arabian Peninsula. Then they're, like, nah, he hates us because we're free. Like, he didn't mention anything about freedom there. And then if you say that, they're, like, well, are you defending Osama Bin Laden? And, like, no. I'm just saying listen to your enemies. There's a reason why he hates us. And if you listen to Vladimir Putin and what he's saying I mean, look, he's wrong for invading, Ukraine. And, I mean, you know me, Joe. I'm the most anti war fuck fucking person there is, and there's no excuse for that. Like, tens of thousands of people have died. It's horrible. And a lot of them are soldiers, but a lot of them are civilians and, but to say he was unprovoked is, like, insane. It's just only people who know nothing about the history of this conflict would say there was no provocation. Did you see the conversation that Roger Waters had with that CNN guy? She had. Right? Because Roger Waters was awesome on that. Yeah. Because he knows what he's talking about, dude. And he he's right about all of that shit. He's look, the the promise, and this is what he was saying, he's absolutely right, that the promise when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and this was, like verbally promised and put in writing, was that NATO would not expand 1 inch to the East and NATO at that point. The line then was through Germany. Right? Like, the the the western half of Germany was in the West and the eastern half was with the Soviet Union and they were, like, we'll let all of these nations, you know, secede and the Soviet Union will collapse and we're giving up on communism, so one of the greatest things that ever happened and the deal was, okay, you do that, then we won't move NATO. We won't move our military alliance into your area that used to be your realm of influence. And every single president since then has moved NATO East to the point that NATO is now on Russia's border. And in Ukraine, even though they didn't officially join NATO, there was always talk of it, Kamala Harris, very right before the start of the war, said we're looking to put Ukraine into NATO and the, the, you know, they put under George W Bush, they put in, in Poland these dual use rocket launchers, there's a big complaint that Vladimir Putin has, that he's like these can be used to get nukes here in a matter of minutes, like this is a this is like a threat to us that we cannot tolerate.

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

13) @JoeRogan and @ComicDaveSmith break down the Obama admin overthrowing Ukraine's government: "All these Soros-funded NGOs funded the militias on the ground... There's a tape of Victoria Nuland talking about who would be the new government... We overthrew their government."

Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2014, there was a coup in Ukraine led by the West. The goal was to attract Ukraine to the West and away from Russia. The Ukrainian government was pro-Russia, but the West wanted a pro-America government. George Soros-funded NGOs supported the militias that overthrew the government. The US State Department was involved in choosing the new government. Ukraine's importance to Putin was a red line. The impeachment of the previous US president and the involvement of the current president's son in Ukraine are connected to this conflict. Burisma, a company linked to the old pro-Russia government, bribed Joe Biden's son. Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate this. Obama didn't send weapons to Ukraine, but Trump did. This context led to Putin invading Ukraine.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Then in 2014, there was a coup in Ukraine that was completely led by the West. And there's I I don't know if you've ever heard, but, like, like, I think I sent you actually once the, the tape of Gideon Rose, who was the editor for Foreign Fairs Magazine on the old Stephen Colbert Report, show, back when Colbert was hilarious. And he was just openly bragging about what the game is here. And then he was like, well, Ukraine is kinda like the Robin to Russia's Batman. And so our job is to steal Robin away from Batman And make him come over here and join us. And, Vladimir Putin's so stupid that he won't do anything. And then Colbert's in his old character. So he's like, well, shouldn't Obama be spiking the football and saying, yeah, in your face, Putin. And Gideon Rose is like, well, no, no, because then Putin might invade Ukraine. So we wouldn't wanna spike the ball, But they there there's these oh, yeah. Here it is. Let's play it. Let's play it. Go from the beginning. Yeah. Play it from the beginning. There Speaker 1: there's the magazine, Foreign Affairs. Now now now now, Gideon, help me out here. We've got a we've got a battle. The Ukraine, some of them wanna go into the EU, the European Union Right. And some of them wanna stay with Russia. If the Ukraine's not in Europe right now, what continent is it on? Speaker 2: Well, it's part of Eurasia, but it's part of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Bloc. Uh-huh. It's basically Robin to Russia's Batman. And the challenge here the challenge here is to try to attract it to the West to get it to flip sides. Speaker 1: So the the rebels in the streets, what are they fighting for? Speaker 2: They're fighting for a better future. Countries have a developed That Speaker 1: sounds like a political So Speaker 2: but it's actually Countries have to develop over time. And Ukraine, basically, after it the end of the Soviet Union faced two tracks. It could stay as sort of stagnant, Corrupt, authoritarian country tied to Russia, or it could essentially join the West. It could modernize, liberalize, become a democracy. At the last minute, when it looked like it was gonna trade up from its sort of, abusive relationship with its boyfriend from the hood to a a nice Guppy, Speaker 1: You're not loading these choices anyway whatsoever. Speaker 2: It's actually true. When it looked like it was gonna trade up to a better, environment, at the last minute, Putin offered a bribe. Speaker 1: How much? Speaker 2: 15,000,000,000. That's Speaker 1: a lot of cash. Speaker 2: It's a lot of cash. And the president, who himself was tied to the old elites And the eastern part of the country ties to Russia decided to back off the change and go for Russia. Speaker 1: Pirate themed restaurants you can buy with $15,000,000,000? Speaker 2: The problem was the western parts of the country and the younger parts of the country and the more modern liberal parts of the country basically knew that they had no future being Russia's Russia's vassal. Do Do we they took to the streets. Speaker 1: Is America taking sides in this in any way? If if these people the the rebels are winning them right now, right? Speaker 2: Yes. Just recently. Speaker 1: Why isn't Obama spiking the ball in the end zone and calling Putin and saying, hey. You might have won the medal count, but we won the country count, biatch. It's Speaker 2: actually a very good question. And the answer is that we don't want Russia to intervene and kick over the table like a gamer risk And take Ukraine back. Speaker 0: And so Speaker 1: Will they do that? Could he send in troops? Yes. Speaker 2: He could. So we are choosing Does Speaker 1: Ukraine have any troops of their own? Would they fight back? Speaker 2: Yes. But we don't want this to Escalate, and we don't want Russia to crack down. So we wanna basically distract Russia. Oh, look, you have the highest medal count. Oh, you did really well. And that's possible. The Olympics. Speaker 1: There's a shiny object. I'll just take an entire country away from you. Speaker 2: Holy shit. Speaker 1: Now Isn't Speaker 0: that funny? Speaker 1: There's a power vacuum right now. Speaker 2: There's a power vacuum. The opposition is all together, which everybody it's it's easy to agree on getting rid of the bad old regime and much harder To create a stable country in which everybody compromises and moves forward. So Speaker 1: They need a strong leader to move the country forward. Do you know who's always good Speaker 3: at a moment like that? Vladimir Putin. Speaker 1: Do you think he might volunteer to come in and and and help Ukraine Speaker 2: find We don't want we don't want we don't want Putin to get involved in this, and so we are basically we wanna try and involve him in this decision so that he allows Ukraine to go. We actually wanna not We wanna say we want a nonexclusive relationship with Ukraine. You can have a relationship with it too. Speaker 1: You're the only one making this into a girlfriend, boyfriend relationship. Speaker 2: Ukraine is basically Choosing its future between 2 completely different courses of action, and we're trying to blur that choice so the old boyfriend doesn't get too upset when it has the right choice. Speaker 0: So so it's just all these George Soros funded NGOs were funding the the militias on the ground who were overthrowing the the government. And then there's a tape of Victoria Nuland, who's who's, was at the state department at the time, one of the top people at the state department. And she was basically talking about who would be the new government that took over who America didn't want in, who we did want in the new government. So it's not you know, what happened basically was as Gideon Rose was even saying, the Ukrainian government was kind of siding with Russia, or at least a lot more pro Russia, and then we overthrew that government and installed the pro America pro government. And this to Putin, he had said over and over again, was a huge red line for him. Like, Ukraine was the big line. And you could look, Imagine take it from our point of view, if, like, Russia was coming over here and overthrowing the pro America government in Montreal and installing a pro Russia government there. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 0: Then, you know, like, this would be seen as would you call that an unprovoked attack? Right. You know, if we were to go in there and then go overthrow that government so, again, I'm not justifying what he's doing. But and then the other thing to this, right, That's important to add is, like, you remember the 2 big things that it's so weird no one, like, at least in the in the larger conversation, I don't see anyone connecting these things, is that there's 2 things like involving Ukraine that they were very big, that happened very recently in American history that very much connect to this war. And one is that Our last president was impeached over a thing with Ukraine and like what was that? And then the other thing is, the current president's son was getting paid 1,000,000 of dollars from a company, Burisma, in Ukraine and these things all connect. Basically, what happened was after the 2014 coup. This company, Burisma, they were and by the way, Matt Taibbi has done incredible reporting on this. I highly recommend everyone read his of, his subsects. Incredible. Fantastic. Unbelievable. But so, basically, Burisma was in bed with the old government that had allied with Russia. And so when this government was overthrown, they were very worried because they were like, oh, we were in bed with the old government and now there's this new government who's in there. And so instead of bribing the new government, they just went right to the source and bribed The son of the sitting vice president, bro, Joe Biden, when he was vice president, was in charge of Ukraine policy. Oh my god. So they just went that was why they put him there. Way. And then they put some other, like, CIA guy or something like that on their board. They're just paying them money to just be, like, hey, keep us in with you. And then Trump was telling them to investigate all of this shit. He got on the phone with them and was like, I want to investigate everything that was going on with Joe and Hunter Biden in Ukraine. And Donald Trump did. He got into an area that it was there's an argument it was not okay what he was doing, because he was kinda going like, Maybe you don't get this these, these weapons that I was gonna send in unless you go investigate them and this was his political opponent, so it was a little bit of a shady thing. But then the other story about that is that ultimately, Trump caved and he sent in the weapons to Ukraine. So now, not only did Obama Overthrow the regime when Joe Biden was the point man. Joe Biden was running Ukraine policy. Obama leads this coup, overthrows that government and puts in a pro Western government, then Trump comes in, sends in a whole bunch of weapons to this new government that Obama wouldn't even send in because he was concerned it would provoke, Russia. And then the next president is Joe Biden, the last guy who was the point man on Ukraine, who who was there when this coup happened, then he comes back in. This is all like the context that led to Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine.

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

14) The Obama administration overthrew Ukraine's elected government in 2014. John McCain rallied protestors, and Victoria Nuland was caught on tape planning Ukraine's new government. What role did this have on the current NATO proxy war in Ukraine?

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the presence of a guest from the United States who frequently visited and supported protests in Ukraine. They express concern about the excessive use of force by the authorities during these protests. The speaker questions the appropriateness of supporting the protesters and creating conflict when they occupy government buildings. They also mention their contact with Vice President Biden and criticize the inconsistency between his words and actions in Ukraine. The speaker suggests that the US ambassador in Ukraine regularly met with representatives of the protests, giving the impression that there was a headquarters managing the process.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Очень час гостями были штатов, кадры смены были госпожа Ну, проезжал очень часто у нас были ней дискуссии, Но после этих дискуссии она шла на Май дан и поддерживала протест. И об право органы прим чрезмерно сила. На самом деле эти все мыс мы видели на Май дань Делегация много проезжал я, что нельзя нельзя говорить, во-первых, неправ. Нельзя становиться на сторону митинг и отстаивать их права, создавая тем самым и углу конфликт. Когда митинг захватывает правительство здание учреждения скажите Допустимо ли это в любой другой стране, например, чтобы посол Украины пришел к митинг фермер и раз там пряники или пирожки и обмен полицейских Соединенных Штатов Америки. Я считаю, что это недопустимо ни в одной европейской стране. А почему к украине было такое отношение Я постоянно имел контакт с вод байден, ви президентом. У меня были частые с ним телефоны п. Но дело в том, что господин Байден говорил одно, а в Украине делали другое. Посол Соединенных Штатов в Украине постоянно принимал представителей май, у себя в посол мы это очень хорошо знали, мы это от и создавал создавалась такое впечатление, что в посол Соединенных штатов существует штаб, который управляет этим процессом.

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

15) After the U.S. overthrew Ukraine's government in 2014, 96% of Luhansk and 89% of Donetsk voted to secede from Ukraine. The west said the elections were illegitimate. But the eastern half of Ukraine typically votes for pro-Russia candidates. Blue = Pro-Russia Red = Pro-West

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

16) If the military-industrial complex sabotaged Nordstream, it would be one of the craziest, most destructive terrorist acts any American administration has ever done. Blowing up a gas pipeline to Europe during an energy crisis and escalating a war with nuclear-armed Russia.

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

17) @Jimmy_Dore: "Your enemy is not China, your enemy is not Russia, your enemy is the Military Industrial Complex..." The bottom line is there will be no world left for our children if this war between nuclear superpowers continues to escalate.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes the United States for provoking and threatening nuclear powers, claiming that Americans are unaware of their own foreign policy. They argue that the military-industrial complex benefits from these actions, while the American people suffer from job losses and corruption. The speaker highlights the excessive military budget and the numerous military bases surrounding China. They assert that China is not an enemy, but rather the military-industrial complex is the true adversary. The speaker also mentions the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria, attributing them to economic interests and imperialism. They conclude by emphasizing the need to recognize the true motives behind these actions.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Think it means is that the United States is trying to provoke and sable Ratter with another nuclear power. Right? This is what we were supposed to be afraid of what's gonna happen with Donald Trump. Right? We couldn't have, he's a crazy man who's gonna have his finger on the nuclear button, and now we have Dementia Joe who is saber rattling with 2 nuclear powers, and they get the corporate media sponsored by the military industrial complex to get Americans to cheer it on. And why do Americans cheer it on? Because they have no idea what's actually happening with their foreign policy. And what's worse is they have no idea that they have no idea with that. They don't have any idea what's happening with their foreign policy. We have 400 military bases surrounding China since the Korean War. Do we really think that China is getting ready to invade the United States because I tell you they're not. They make everything we use in the United States. Why? Because the same people who want this war are the same people who took the good jobs that are manufacturing jobs in America, turned them into low paying crappy jobs, and then shipped them to China, and then we get angry at them for the system that we set up if they're so corrupt. Because that's the thing, Americans have no idea how corrupt their government is. They think our government's just regular corrupt, like, oh, Trump gave his son a job or Biden gave his kid a no pa a no show job in the Ukraine war. That's not the whole thing is corrupt. The $800,000,000,000 military budget is $800,000,000,000 of corruption. Why do we have to have 8, 8, 900 military bases around. We're the ones provoking this war. Just like we provoked the war in Ukraine, we are now provoking a war with China. And what who who benefits? I'll tell you right now. Your enemy is not China. Your enemy is not Russia. Your enemy is the military industrial complex, which has been fleecing this country to the tunes of 100 of 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars. How many times are we gonna have a defense secretary say, hey, we can't account for $2,000,000,000,000 in the Pentagon again. That like, which has happened twice now in my lifetime. So, again, people are being, the the war machine cannot be stopped. Who's running this country? The war machine. It certainly isn't Joe Biden making these decisions. I would like to know who is making the decisions, and I just wanna remind everybody, the United States is the world's terrorist. We just set the Middle East on fire in the last 20 years, and now we're doing a proxy war in Ukraine, which we provoked, NATO provoked, and was just admitted that we provoked it by the former prime minister of Germany, and now we're trying to sable rather with with China, and they're predicting a war. Again, China's not gonna invade us. China's not our enemy. Then we might have an economic war. That's what these are. These are economic wars. These are wars for in Ukraine, it's about liquefied natural gas and making sure Germany and Russia never come together because we fear Russia's, natural resources and manpower, and we fear them getting together with Germany with their technology and their capital, and so that's why we blew up the Nord Stream pipeline. That's why we're doing the Ukraine war. This is all about hegemony, imperialism, and economics. And if there's a marine somewhere, it's there because they're about to steal some natural resources from another country. As everybody's screaming about what a bad guy hide Putin as for invading Ukraine. The United States is currently occupying a third of Syria. And which third is that? It's the third that has the oil. And how do I know we're there to steal their oil? Because the president of the United States said so. And we're not we're not even benefiting economically. That's, I mean, of course, that's the rub. Jimmy Dore, appreciate it. Thank you.

@KanekoaTheGreat - kanekoa.substack.com

18) Did you know that only 10% of my posts make it to your home page feed? If you appreciate my work — and don't want to miss anything, please consider hitting the bell on my profile page. 🙏♥️🌎 @KanekoaTheGreat

ivan_8848
Posted - May 16, 2021 at 12:07 AM
Saved - July 22, 2025 at 3:54 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The conversation centers on the US and NATO's involvement in the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine, highlighting Victoria Nuland's role in various US interventions over the past three decades. The initial post introduces a multimedia perspective on the consequences of US and EU actions in Ukraine, referencing organizations like the CIA and USAID. Subsequent responses provide links to additional content related to these themes, suggesting a focus on the broader implications of foreign intervention in Ukraine's political landscape.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The US/NATO Orchestration of the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine Victoria Nuland Had a Hand in Every US Intervention in the Past 30 Years Welcome to Nulandistan: A Multimedia Look at What the US and EU Have Unleashed on Ukraine CIA, USAID, NED and a whole host of other US tentacles

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

John J. Mearsheimer in 2015 which nobody listened. "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked." #RussiaUkraineCrisis

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The US/NATO Orchestration of the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine Victoria Nuland Had a Hand in Every US Intervention in the Past 30 Years Welcome to Nulandistan: A Multimedia Look at What the US and EU Have Unleashed on Ukraine CIA, USAID, NED and a whole host of other US tentacles

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The US/NATO Orchestration of the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine Victoria Nuland Had a Hand in Every US Intervention in the Past 30 Years Welcome to Nulandistan: A Multimedia Look at What the US and EU Have Unleashed on Ukraine CIA, USAID, NED and a whole host of other US tentacles

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Victoria Nuland creates the post-coup government 2014. A leaked discussion of who will be president, pm, ministers of the cabinet, and more. Hard evidence that Ukraine was not a sovereign country when Russia intervened. It is under US occupation through the CIA and the IMF.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The US/NATO Orchestration of the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine George Soros, Victoria Nuland. Chris Murphy, John McCain, Joe Biden, Geoffrey R. Pyatt

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

⚡Prank with the 43rd US President George W. Bush. Part 1: NATO expansion. The former owner of the White House, being sure that he was talking to the President of Ukraine, spoke about how the United States cynically violated the promise not to expand NATO.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

If anyone has doubts, the war is not Russia 🆚 Ukraine. ⚡Prank with the 43rd US President George W. Bush. Part 2: War of the West against the Russians

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

THE PLANNING OF THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA A video, filmed during John McCain’s visit to Ukraine in 2016, has resurfaced. It shows the senator accompanied by his colleague and friend, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

THE PLANNING OF THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA https://www.voltairenet.org/article217092.html?fbclid=IwAR3ukSv4lnEnOlKumjug_9i0Sz1tJ3vOr2oSvac2U0xINI3-GRYA7idClFM

The secret Ukrainian military programs, by Thierry Meyssan In 2016, the United States committed to arming Ukraine to fight and win a war against Russia. Subsequently, the US Department of Defense (…) [Voltaire Network ] voltairenet.org

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

THE PLANNING OF THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA https://www.voltairenet.org/article217092.html?fbclid=IwAR3ukSv4lnEnOlKumjug_9i0Sz1tJ3vOr2oSvac2U0xINI3-GRYA7idClFM

The secret Ukrainian military programs, by Thierry Meyssan In 2016, the United States committed to arming Ukraine to fight and win a war against Russia. Subsequently, the US Department of Defense (…) [Voltaire Network ] voltairenet.org

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

⚡⚡⚡ Exactly eight years ago, on June 2, 2014, Lugansk was subjected to a massive air attack. In broad daylight, a Su-25 attack aircraft of the armed forces of Ukraine dropped bombs on the city center, where there was a kindergarten, a square, and residential buildings.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Please note that the leader of the Ukrainian neonazi organisation C14 clearly states "the war we have started" - meaning Ukraine started the war, not Russia. This video is from 5th February 2022. Russia's military intervention started on the 24th February 2022.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

HOW 🇺🇦 WAR BEGAN: 2014. I have been looking for these images for a while but they disappeared from Youtube search. This is how the war in 🇺🇦 started, I think it was the 11th of May 2014. Residents of Mariupol opposed the anti-Russian rhetoric of the CIA installed coup government

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The West's responsibility for the Ukraine war US and its NATO allies played a crucial role in the events that led to the Ukraine War, the result of the West’s (primarily #US) efforts to turn #Ukraine into a Western bulwark on #Russia’s border – Professor John J. Mearsheimer

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Ukraine was not in NATO, but NATO was in Ukraine since 2014 The alliance began training the 🇺🇦 military in 2014 averaging 10 000 trained troops annualy "The US & its allies were effectively turning 🇺🇦 into a defacto memeber of NATO" A lecture by John J. Mearsheimer

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

OSCE Reports Reveal Ukraine Started Shelling The Donbas Nine Days Before Russia's 'Special Military Operation' The Biden Administration, U.S. political officials, and the corporate media are lying the American public into World War III. https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/osce-reports-reveal-ukraine-started

OSCE Reports Reveal Ukraine Started Shelling The Donbas Nine Days Before Russia's 'Special Military Operation' The Biden Administration, U.S. political officials, and the corporate media are lying the American public into World War III. kanekoa.news

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/00FgGfBqvA

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

We would not be where we are, if there not been a bloody anti-constitutional coup d'etat in Kyiv with the direct participation of a number of Western countries. Russia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/V7r3BtjZMF

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The grandmother who made the mess eight years ago has arrived. The criminal always returns to the scene of the crime. Victoria Nuland sniffed along with Zelensky in Kiev and spewed the following nonsense

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/HuiBprXKzi

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

How USA funded AL Kaida and Ukrainian Nazis Michael Hudson

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/AS0a5sWvBi

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland on Washington's support for strikes on Crimea: "These are legitimate targets. Ukraine strikes at them. And we support it."

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/mFKcWrb6DY

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The US/NATO Orchestration of the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine Victoria Nuland Had a Hand in Every US Intervention in the Past 30 Years Nuland knew about the far right militias in 🇺🇦, but concealed the fact - French report @elonmusk: "Nobody is pushing this war more than Nuland"

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/kYhMffITpc

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Masterclass ‼️ Scott Ritter: The CIA has been supporting Banderists since 1945 In 2014 CIA, USAID, NED and a whole host of other US tentacles - MAIDAN Coup in Ukraine. Now Zelensky is controlled.

PLR_2024
Posted - July 17, 2023 at 6:26 PM
Saved - July 18, 2023 at 4:13 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
President's Support for Ukraine and Allegations of Corruption: The tweets highlight various claims regarding Ukraine and its political landscape. They allege that the Ukrainian government, under President Zelensky, has engaged in acts of genocide, war crimes, and human rights abuses. Additionally, they accuse Joe Biden of corruption and involvement in Ukraine's affairs. The tweets also mention the Azov Battalion, the annexation of Crimea, and the suppression of the Russian language. The author proposes a peaceful resolution to the conflict, emphasizing the removal of Zelensky from power.

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

As President, I will NOT support #Ukraine️ and I consider @ZelenskyyUa to be a foreign enemy of the United States of America. Let me be clear; this thread will be hard for you to read and the videos are of a sensitive nature that only mature adults should view. 1/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

In 2014 U.S. V.P. Biden (@POTUS) as foreign policy lead on Ukraine supported the overthrow of democratically elected pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych for the sole purpose of ensuring that Russia would not have an ally in Ukraine. 2/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

Post Coup, the Ukrainian territory of Crimea voted 97% to reunify with Russia. The Crimean territory is 82% native Russian speaking. In response, the Azov Battalion was founded. 3/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

The Azov Battalion was formed to fight the ethnic Russians who were no longer represented by Kyiv, and instead looking to Russia for protection. Azov began by bombing a damn cutting off 3/4ths of Crimea's fresh Water. Followed by shelling of civilians in Donbass. 4/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

This prompted the invasion of Crimea in 2014. Not only was Azov savaging those who were in areas that voted to leave Ukraine, they took to brutalizing those who spoke the Russian language, many of whom do not speak any other language. 5/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

Following the Ukrainian Coup, @JoeBiden installed his son Hunter Biden in the Burisma Energy Company to financially benefit from the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych. 6/🧵 https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110331/documents/HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD067.pdf

Congress.gov | Library of Congress congress.gov

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

@JoeBiden Moving Forward 6 years @JoeBiden managed another Coup, this time giving him authority over the United States. Naturally, @KremlinRussia_E knows that Biden's corruption in Ukraine will only get worse and NATO is likely to enable him. 7/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

Following the 2022 invasion by Russia, Kyiv Nationalized the Azov Battalion recognizing them as a regiment in their National Guard, while Zelensky appointed Azov members to high-level government positions with influence over 'culture'. 8/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

What followed the nationalization of the Azov Regiment and their views can only be described as horrific, acts of genocide, and war crimes. While Orthodox Christianity was made illegal, here you can witness Ukrainian military personnel crucifying a orthodox priest. 9/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

Zelensky then pushed agendas against publicly speaking Russian, against Russian literature, and historical figures. It became common practice to bind those who spoke Russian publicly, to beat them, and to rape them. Men, Women, Children and Elders https://www.jpost.com/international/article-732490 10/🧵

Ukraine brings cancel culture after Russian culture, language Although Russian has not been banned, it is true that restrictions have steadily increased. The invasion of Ukraine has eliminated Russian far more effectively than any law could. jpost.com

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

You may be ready to turn away, DON'T. You NEED to know what your tax dollars are paying for and many of my political opponents are running while supporting. KEEP READING and WATCH. 11/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

The people bound for speaking a language were committing no crime, but if they were, this treatment is not fit for ANY prisoner in any civilized country. 12/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

It cannot be argued that these individual's acted alone without the approval of their government, not when there is such a clear and recurring theme by the thugs representing Zelensky. 13/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

Sadly, humiliation, torture, and rape are some of the lower crimes committed by Zelensky's Nazi Regime. Here we see cannibalism, and bound immolation. 14/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

Here you witness the execution of prisoners of war who are lying face down having surrendered. Remember that some of these Soldiers may have been draftees who had no desire to fight in the first place. 15/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

The execution of POWs was not a one-off. Even during WWII and Vietnam our enemies put American POW's in camps. Ukraine is not a country worthy of being our ally. 16/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

It baffles the mind that the same people who want to 'Punch Nazi's' are mostly the people on Twitter right now flying Ukrainian flags. Do they not know? Ignorance was not an excuse at the Nuremberg trials. 17/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

Or perhaps we need to come to grips with the fact that the radical left wants the freedom to do exactly this to American citizens, those who puppet Liberal Agendas are just doing so to take power, then they can murder prisoners with sledge hammers. 18/🧵

Video Transcript AI Summary
Evgeniy Anatoliy Anatolyevich wants to join the military to fight against Putin and do something for Ukraine. He doesn't care about the consequences and is determined to make it happen. He is uncertain about how his life will unfold, but his goal is clear. Evgeniy's passion for Ukraine is evident as he expresses his desire to fight for the country.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Нужен евгений анатолий анатольевич когда вот это руку и я уже для себя решил, что когда пред и постараюсь туда попасть. Я бы хотел наплевать на украинцев. А у вас есть понимание как дальше сложится ваша жизнь я не знаю как она сложится меня цель была одна но я сижу здесь а так я бы хотел воевать за украину хоть что-то сделать против этого этого путина и так далее

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

Perhaps those like @SpeakerMcCarthy who wear a Ukraine Flag on their lapel are just itching for the day when they can bind and rape their enemies on the streets. 19/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

@SpeakerMcCarthy Or perhaps, now that @JoeBiden allegedly finished the disposal of chemical weapons, he can act innocent when they are used on American people as Ukraine used Sarin Gas on Russian troops and Donbass civilians. 20/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

@SpeakerMcCarthy @JoeBiden Exactly what is it that @SenatorTimScott, @AsaHutchinson, Mike Pence, @SpeakerMcCarthy, @TheDemocrats, and @realDonaldTrump are approving of when supporting Ukraine? What is "Honorable" about @ZelenskyyUa? 21/🧵 https://t.co/aHZPhHgVNm

@NvrBackDown24 - Never Back Down

Trump says he will threaten Russia by telling Putin that America will give Ukraine's "honorable" President Zelenskyy "a lot" of weapons and money. Trump says "we're going to give them more than they ever got" from Biden "if we have to."

Video Transcript AI Summary
I claimed that I could end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. I have a good relationship with Zelensky and Putin, and I believe I can use that to negotiate a deal. Zelensky denied any knowledge of the controversial phone call, which I found honorable. However, I clarified that simply feeling threatened would not be enough to stop Putin from bombing Ukraine. My plan is to tell Zelensky to make a deal and warn Putin that if he doesn't, we will provide more support to Ukraine than ever before.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You said you could end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Yes. I did. How would you do that? I know Zelensky very well. I felt he was very honorable because when they asked him about the perfect phone call that I made, he said it was indeed he said it was he didn't even know what they were talking about. He could have grandstand ed, Oh, I felt threatened. Well, that's not gonna be enough for Putin to stop bombing Ukraine. No, no, no. No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that I know Zelensky very well and I know Putin very well, even better. And I had a good relationship, very good, with both of them. I would tell Zelensky, No more. You gotta make a deal. I would tell Putin, if you don't make a deal, we're gonna give him a lot. We're gonna give him more than they ever got if we have to.

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

@SpeakerMcCarthy @JoeBiden @SenatorTimScott @AsaHutchinson @TheDemocrats @realDonaldTrump @ZelenskyyUa A vote for any of them is a vote in support of the Nazi Party of Ukraine. Flying a Ukrainian Flag is flying a Nazi Flag. Is it so hard for our nation to wake up and say six simple words? 'Fuck Trump and Let's Go Brandon' 22/🧵 #FuckTrump #LetsGoBrandon

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

@SpeakerMcCarthy @JoeBiden @SenatorTimScott @AsaHutchinson @TheDemocrats @realDonaldTrump @ZelenskyyUa My Administration WILL end this war. I will provide ZERO support to Ukrainian Nazi's. I will inform Putin of the change on day one. He can call a ceasefire or be caught in the crossfire. America will take the AZOV and Zelensky out of power, and trial him for war crimes. 23/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

@SpeakerMcCarthy @JoeBiden @SenatorTimScott @AsaHutchinson @TheDemocrats @realDonaldTrump @ZelenskyyUa I propose the following peaceful resolution where everyone wins and loses. All Territory East of the Dnieper River and greater than 65% Russian Speaking, will seed to Russia following a ratification vote overseen by independent arbitration. 24/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

@SpeakerMcCarthy @JoeBiden @SenatorTimScott @AsaHutchinson @TheDemocrats @realDonaldTrump @ZelenskyyUa Russian speaking territory East of Dnieper would seed to Moldova following a ratification vote overseen by independent arbitration. Moldova is a non-NATO nation and to maintain peace should stay as such. Poland, a NATO country would annex much of the West land on vote. 25/🧵

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

@SpeakerMcCarthy @JoeBiden @SenatorTimScott @AsaHutchinson @TheDemocrats @realDonaldTrump @ZelenskyyUa My Peace Proposal for Ukraine is not significantly different from that proposed by @elonmusk with the exception that I demand the ousting of Zelensky from power, NATO would gain territory equal to Russia, so that Russia does not walk away with a solid win. Moldova and New Kiev…

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

https://t.co/pIzivC6RCo

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

I look forward to being added to this list. https://t.co/o0Sl66zl3c

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

To all the Ukrainian Nazi's claiming the first photo is photoshopped using 4chan screenshots that don't prove anything, there is plenty of evidence throughout the rest of the thread to prove it regardless.

@PLR_2024 - PATRICK L. RILEY 🇺🇲

I really brought out all the crazies with this one.

TonySeruga
Posted - September 22, 2023 at 10:20 PM
Saved - September 23, 2023 at 1:17 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Over 50,000 dead and 130,000 injured in Ukraine, as warned. Virtue signaling is futile; you're misinformed. Celebrities and elites profit from this bloodshed. Zelensky is no warrior, but a pretender. Child trafficking and organ harvesting plague Ukraine. Americans' support fueled this needless war. Corrupt leaders and CIA involvement worsened the conflict. Europe distances itself, and Zelensky's reception in DC was cold. Crooks and politicians profited. Wake up!

@TonySeruga - Tony Seruga

The official Pentagon numbers are 50,000 dead Ukrainians and over 130,000 injured! WE TOLD YOU THIS WAS ALL GOING TO HAPPEN! Those of you with your virtue signaling flag, hoping you’ll get attention, get noticed, acknowledged, for being like some great humanitarian, you are a fraud. You are uneducated, misinformed and clueless! You, along with the entitled, virtue signaling, uninformed or low informed celebrities have ALL gotten over 500,000 of innocent Ukrainian’s and Russian’s blood on their hands, they are bloodletting these poor souls in order to make the global elites even more wealthy, i.e., BlackRock, Sequoia Capital, Blackstone, State Street, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, BAE, United Technologies, L-3 Communications, et al. And Zelensky is not a warrior. He’s an LGBT dancer/actress pretending to be warrior/president. He will never die for Ukraine. Zelensky will take the money and run. His sort is common and predictable. He also not only sympathizes with but supports Nazis. Not to mention the 7-8 million Ukrainians that fled their country, with at least 200,000 young children taken by sex traffickers. Additionally, it is very difficult to even talk about, but many of these children are having their organs harvested while they are still alive! It’s all true, just one example is a ‘charity’ group named Heart with Love is doing this travesty. Research the group. They are not to only one. Ukraine has been the world’s center for child trafficking for decades. https://humanevents.com/2023/09/19/video-leak-arrested-child-trafficker-admit-to-boarding-school-used-as-front-for-organ-harvesting-network-in-ukraine You and all the other supporters of this needless war will go down in history for what you encouraged. Had ALL Americans stood firm, Russia and Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate a settlement. Do you even know why Russia attacked and what the provocation was? The history? Were you aware of just how corrupt Ukraine leaders are? Of course the Russians are no angels, but Ukraine, the American CIA and NATO are 100% responsible for this conflict. Did you know the American military and CIA had bioweapons labs in Ukraine. And Russia was protecting their only warm water port. Next, having NATO even considering admitting Ukraine would be tantamount to North Korea or Iran being allowed by the Pentagon to move troops into Tijuana, Mexico. Wake up! And right on cue, Poland and in fact Europe is beginning to step away from the war. To top it off, Zelenskyy’s reception in Washington DC was rather chilly. We told you this would happen! And the crooks and corrupt politicians and Military-Industrial Complex all profited handsomely.

_Con_Crescence_
Posted - November 23, 2023 at 3:55 AM
Saved - August 15, 2025 at 8:06 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The conversation begins with a user criticizing the EU and US foreign policy regarding the war in Ukraine, expressing disdain for Zelensky and suggesting that the conflict has led to unnecessary suffering. They argue that the US's involvement is driven by corruption and economic interests, comparing Ukraine's situation to Iraq. Another user expresses support for Ukraine, prompting the critic to clarify their stance against the current Ukrainian government and question the other user's motivations. The exchange concludes with a suggestion that the responder may be a bot.

@_Con_Crescence_ - Silentium

Another deluded person with deluded take on something that is so obviously a tragedy and abject failure of the EU and US foreign policy. Fortunately this war will be over soon with the exile, death or imprisonment of the horrible leech Zelensky. Thank god this is coming to an end, I only wish so many duped Ukrainian's and Russians didn't have to die for America to satisfy its bloodlust and attempts to stim their economy and look at the US now... how much did their little war porn boost US economy not enough I guess because the US is teetering on the edge of defaulting. It won't of course due to the rampant corruption, but thats probably why along with a feeble attempt to 'weaken' Russia the US supported Ukraine. It takes one corrupt regime pretending to hold democratic values to know another doing the same. Ukraine is so fucked now, and holds as much moral weight as the US during the invasion of Iraq. The CIA backed coup in Ukraine is now well known, Russia did not attack Ukraine in an entirely unprovoked manner, and if you compare Ukraine to pre Maiden, its a hell of a lot worse now. American politicians I salute you and wish for you to get swift karmic justice America's poor excuse for leaders deserve. US' neocon boomer politicians should rot in jail for the abject misery they have caused around the world and to its own citizens through the myriad of foreign and domestic failures. Just wish the Ukrainians weren't so fucking stupid to agree to be led by the that wretch of man zombie Zelensky and butcher Biden

@AMutsey88370 - Anastasia Mutsey

@FANATICALFISH Thanks for supporting Ukraine and for your prayers 🙏

@_Con_Crescence_ - Silentium

@AMutsey88370 You're a bot. Read what I wrote. I do not support containing this war. Zelensky needs to go so unless you are an actual soldier willing to remove Zelensky, I am not sure why you think I am supporting the current Ukrainian government

@AMutsey88370 - Anastasia Mutsey

@FANATICALFISH I understand

@_Con_Crescence_ - Silentium

@AMutsey88370 Than you're a NAFO bot?

bitter_a14915
Posted - December 5, 2023 at 7:00 AM
Saved - December 11, 2023 at 11:48 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Ukraine/Russia conflict is more about Germany and the EU than the two countries themselves. The US didn't like Germany and the EU cozying up to Russia for gas. To end Europe's dependence on Russian gas, they orchestrated a coup in Ukraine, installed a US-friendly government, armed and trained the Azov battalion, and ignored peace agreements. With Trump out, they proclaimed Ukraine's NATO membership, provoking Russia to invade. This gave the US an excuse to impose sanctions and blow up the pipeline. Their master plan failed, leaving Ukraine vulnerable.

@bitter_a14915 - Red Mosquito

The last 9 years of the Ukraine/Russia conflict simply explained for those who haven't paid attention. This war is more about Germany and the EU than Ukraine/Russia. Germany and the EU were getting cozy with Russia and their gas....The US didn't like this. 🧵#UkraineRussiaWar

@bitter_a14915 - Red Mosquito

2014, Condoleezza Rice explains how Europe should be depending on North American gas not Russia. If anyone is going to be dependent they are going to be dependent on us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qiugi-X0rGc

@bitter_a14915 - Red Mosquito

In order to kill Europe's dependence on Russian gas they need to weaken Russia and destroy the pipeline. They made this no secret. Many US politicians said it out loud. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVdluqSePTA

@bitter_a14915 - Red Mosquito

Step 1. 2014. Orchestrate a coup in Ukraine to remove Ukraine president, Viktor Yanukovych who was friendly with Moscow and install a friend of the US. The leaked phone call of Victoria Nuland gives us insight into who they wanted to install. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k

@bitter_a14915 - Red Mosquito

Step 2. After Installing a puppet, people in the Donbass want to separate because they want no part of the puppet government. https://t.co/Ba4vgDCXqv

@bitter_a14915 - Red Mosquito

US begins arming and training the Neo-Nazi Azov battalion in Ukraine to put down the separatist movement. They also arm and train them for future use against Russia https://t.co/VEyVpXFH9j

@bitter_a14915 - Red Mosquito

Some in congress did not like arming Nazis and actually passed a bill to stop it. It didn't matter, the arms and training continued to flow. https://t.co/USXcMvDt7b

@bitter_a14915 - Red Mosquito

In 2014 The EU, Ukraine and Russia signed a peace agreement to end the hostilities. Last year former German Chancellor Merkel admitted the agreement was a scam just to buy time to arm and train Ukraine. They had no intention of upholding their end of the agreement. https://t.co/AGOXdnDI1b

@bitter_a14915 - Red Mosquito

Time for step 3. Only one problem. Donald Trump is president. They did all this work and now it will go to waste because Trump will not go for war. So. Get rid of Trump by any means necessary. Gin up some reasons to impeach, maybe rig an election. Just get rid of him.

@bitter_a14915 - Red Mosquito

Now that Trump is out of the picture, step 3 can proceed. Start proclaiming that Ukraine will join NATO knowing this is Russia's red line. https://t.co/FKVs3Pk322

@bitter_a14915 - Red Mosquito

Step 4 Russia invades. Now the US has an excuse to put massive sanctions on Russia and blow up the pipeline. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSPfXLPUJHM

@bitter_a14915 - Red Mosquito

Continuing with step 4.Send massive amounts of money and arms so Ukranian lives can be used as cannon fodder to try and weaken Russia. Step 5. Realize your master plan has failed. Tell Ukraine you no longer have money, back away, leave Ukraine out to dry, get ready for election https://t.co/0ysqzCWH61

wendyp4545
Posted - December 14, 2023 at 7:34 PM
Saved - December 14, 2023 at 8:41 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Janet Yellen allegedly paid Putin $18 billion for a soft "incursion" into war-torn areas of Ukraine. The intent was not to gain land, but rather to launder billions through Ukraine and give the country a new image. Elected officials may receive kickbacks from defense manufacturers, and there could be offshore accounts involved.

@wendyp4545 - Wendy Patterson

True story. Janet Yellen paid Putin $18 billion dollars to do a soft "incursion" , Joe's words, into Ukraine in the areas of Ukraine that have been at war since 2014. If you noticed, neither side is making any progress in taking any land because that wasn't the intent for Putin to cross into Ukraine. Putin crossing into Ukraine is the excuse to launder billions through Ukraine while the country gets a new makeover and by the time the farce ends they'll have new military compliments of the US taxpayer. Elected officials get kickbacks from the defense manufacturers and there are probably a few offshore accounts that receive regular deposits from Zelenskey.

@GuntherEagleman - Gunther Eagleman™

Wake up! If Russia wanted Ukraine, it would already have Ukraine.

ivan_8848
Posted - December 25, 2023 at 5:26 PM
Saved - December 26, 2023 at 10:15 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Maidan Riots in Ukraine led to an illegal coup against the elected President, starting a civil war. The US government's involvement includes orchestrating the coup, supporting Nazis and CIA snipers, and provoking war with Russia. The US-led NATO war machine and propaganda media are criticized, and the post questions support for the US government and its actions. The war in Ukraine is seen as provoked and inevitable, with Zelensky being called a puppet. NATO is criticized as a military alliance that feeds on war and is called to disband. The US government's role in the Maidan coup and its support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine are highlighted. The post argues that understanding the US government's role in Ukraine is crucial to understanding the current crisis. The war in Ukraine is blamed on US, British, and NATO expansion.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The Maidan Riots in Feb 2014 orchestrated by Nuland, Obama,CIA, USAID, NED and a whole host of other US tentacles led to the illegal Coup D'Etat against a legitimately elected President and started the Civil War. Obama called them "Peaceful protesters". https://t.co/lqamnvTiZY https://t.co/bq1oxSQyyo

Video Transcript AI Summary
The protesters in Ukraine are calling for a revolution to topple the elected government and sign an association agreement with the EU. They want a stable business environment and support from the free world. It would be a shame to waste years of preparation if the agreement is not signed soon. Some believe that Yats is the right person to lead the government due to his economic and governing experience. The brave Ukrainians are peacefully standing against tyranny and expect the government to avoid violence when dealing with them.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How does this suddenly morph from a protest into a revolution as the protesters are calling, looking to topple an Speaker 1: elected Government to change the president, to sign an association agreement, but this is our agenda. We are waiting that president then return back to Brazil and sign that agreement. Good to see you. We're here from America. Would you like some red? Then Signing the association agreement with the EU would also put Ukraine on a path to strengthening the sort of stable and predictable business environment that investors require. An The free world is with America is with you. I am with you. It would be a huge shame to see 5 years' worth of work and preparation go to waste an If if the AA is not signed in the near future, so it is time to finish the job. We have been actively engaged in what's been happening in the then 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. I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. Obviously not gonna comment on private diplomatic conversations. These, brave Ukrainians took to the streets in order to stand peacefully against tyranny. And we expect, the Ukrainian government, to shoulder strength, to not resort to violence and dealing with, peaceful protesters.

@KimDotcom - Kim Dotcom

This is important. Pay attention. What the US Govt did to Ukraine is unforgivable: The 2014 coup with the help of Nazis and CIA snipers, endless propaganda and lies, breaches of the Minsk accords, murder of 15,000+ ethnic Russians in Donbas, provoking war with Russia via NATO expansion with plans to station nuclear capable missiles 400km from Moscow, arrogantly ignoring Russias warning to back off, acting surprised when Russia invaded Ukraine “unprovoked”, blowing up the NordStream pipelines in an act of international terrorism, unleashing thousands of sanctions against Russia to force “regime change” (unsuccessfully), bankrupting Ukraine with loans and by wrecking the Ukrainian economy, ripping off the US tax base and paying the Military Industrial Complex for sending old and ineffective arms stockpiles to Ukraine, causing millions of Ukrainians to flee to Europe, falsely promising Ukraine “unwavering support for as long as it takes”, preventing a peace agreement with Russia, causing 600,000+ Ukrainians to die in a US proxy war, losing 20% of Ukrainian territory and $10+ trillion of proven natural resources to Russia, controlling western mainstream media and lying to the world by falsely claiming that Ukraine is winning and that Russia is about to fold, using EU politicians as puppets who sold out and will never win re-election, de-industrialization of Europe and luring Gas dependent Industries with unfair subsidies to the US, costing EU taxpayers 120+ billion for funding a US proxy war and causing trillions in future economic losses for the EU, getting Germany to send tanks to kill Russians after the Soviets sacrificed 27 million people in WW2 to stop Adolf Hitler, getting Putin charged for war crimes by the western funded International Criminal Court and then backing an actual genocide by Israel against Palestinian civilians, blaming Ukraine for the failed counter-offensive instead of admitting that Pentagon war simulations are garbage, preventing diplomacy because peace and a neutral Ukraine would be a victory for Russia and destroying Biden’s re-election chances, laundering money via Ukraine to US and Ukrainian politicians, the list goes on and on. Don’t even get me started about the millions of people the US Govt killed by funding the creation of Covid-19 and unsafe vaccines. Are you supporting the United States Govt and the US Deep State which controls politicians in all parties, the judiciary and big tech? Are you supporting the Pentagon propaganda media, the US censorship machine and the 5 Eyes mass surveillance regime that constantly collects every bit of data about you? Are you supporting the US led NATO war machine, chaos by design, global deception and mass murder? Did you know that the US Govt has killed over 20 million people in 37 victim nations since WW2? That doesn’t include deaths by sanctions and Covid-19. Is your nation and are your politicians backing endless US wars, theft and crimes against humanity? What happened in Ukraine is your wake-up call. This may be your last chance to rise against the evildoers and their corrupt system. Soon @X and @elonmusk will be forced to comply with censorship or be destroyed and you will have to look for posts like this in the anonymous corners of the Internet. If you fail to act World War 3 is more likely than not and 99% of humanity would vanish. This isn’t fear-mongering. You need to understand why the US started the proxy war with Russia: If the US Govt can’t stop the growing multipolar order spearheaded by Russia and China or the de-dollarization in international trade the US will simply collapse because it will no longer be able to print money on the backs of other nations which use the US dollar as a reserve currency. Printing trillions of dollars was the only way for the US Govt to stay afloat, turning the markets into a Ponzi scheme and managing an unsustainable and rapidly increasing debt-burden. Those days are numbered.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/kkxTrs1azP

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The Ukraine - Russian War was planned well in advance. The war in Ukraine will stop when it is stopped by the one who organized it, financed and continues to finance it. This war is provoked and inevitable. Zelensky is a puppet. https://t.co/eWAfFBPTas https://t.co/4KAV1NUBfC

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/BpXXczYv1s

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Brilliant!!! The best video @0rf ‼️👏👏👏 Watch Matt Orfalea Bitch Slap Those Who Said The Ukraine Invasion Was "Not About NATO" The biggest threat in the world is NATO. NATO exists to solve the problems created by NATO’s existence. NATO is a military alliance that feeds on war. To justify its existence, NATO constantly needs an external enemies and conflicts. NATO DISBAND!

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Putin sent a draft treaty to NATO, asking them to promise not to expand further. NATO did not agree, so Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO from encroaching on his borders. However, many speakers emphasize that the conflict is not about NATO enlargement but rather about protecting democracy in Ukraine. They argue that Ukraine's restrictions on political parties, books, music, and elections are evidence of this. Some speakers compare Putin to Hitler, claiming he is trying to rebuild a Soviet empire and is a threat to global peace. Senator Lindsey Graham expresses concern about Putin's actions in Ukraine and other parts of the world.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Putin actually sent a 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. Speaker 1: Flashback. Speaker 0: This is fundamentally not about NATO Expansion Speaker 1: It was never about NATO enlargement. It's not about NATO. Speaker 2: It's not Speaker 3: about NATO expanding toward Russia. Speaker 1: This was never about NATO? Speaker 3: It's absolutely nothing to do with NATO expansionism. And it Speaker 1: has nothing to do with NATO. This is not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It's not really about NATO. Speaker 2: This is not about NATO. Speaker 1: Seriously, it's not about NATO. Speaker 2: This was never about NATO. Speaker 1: It was never about NATO. Let's be honest. Speaker 2: This doesn't have anything to do with NATO? Speaker 1: Nothing to do with NATO at all. Yeah. He's Claiming it's, like, security purposes, but we can see the clear reason. Speaker 2: But NATO is not the reason. 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. Speaker 1: It's about democracy. And it's Speaker 2: not about NATO expansion. This war in Ukraine is not about NATO. Speaker 1: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It Speaker 2: has nothing to do with NATO. Speaker 3: Nothing to do with NATO expansion. Speaker 1: It's not about NATO expansion. Speaker 2: Nothing to do with with NATO. It isn't really about NATO. It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO enlargement. In fact, it has nothing to do with NATO. It's not about NATO encroaches So it's 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. Hang on. I mean, the 2 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 0: He wanted us to sign a promise never to enlarge NATO. We rejected that. Speaker 3: 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 2: About Putin being sick. I don't know how you negotiate peace with a madman, but nobody negotiated with Hitler. People were comparing him to Hitler. To Hitler. Remember Hitler? He's Hitler. We're back when the Nazis invaded Poland. This is exactly the same what Hitler was doing to choose. This is the same. Speaker 1: Putin will not stop. Speaker 3: Putin is reminiscent of Hitler. Hitler. Speaker 2: This reminds me of Hitler. Hitler. Hitler. He's the new Hitler. Oh, Hitler. 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. Alright. Straight ahead.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/U8N74qxoaO

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The US/NATO Orchestration of the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine Victoria Nuland Had a Hand in Every US Intervention in the Past 30 Years Welcome to Nulandistan: A Multimedia Look at What the US and EU Have Unleashed on Ukraine CIA, USAID, NED and a whole host of other US tentacles https://t.co/mTYfikMGw5

Video Transcript AI Summary
We're discussing a phone call between Victoria Nuland, the top US diplomat for Europe, and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt. They talk about getting Sari to come in on Monday or Tuesday with the help of the UN and EU. The United States has supported Ukraine since its independence in 1991, investing over $5 billion to promote democracy, good governance, and civic participation. Americans support Ukrainian protesters who want closer ties to Europe. The United States has always been concerned about the alliance between Germany and Russia, as it poses a threat. The combination of German technology and capital with Russian resources and manpower has historically worried the US.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're talking about Victoria Nuland, the top US diplomat for Europe, assistant secretary. This is about a phone call she was having with the US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt. And I got to say, for a diplomatic reporter like me, it was a fascinating conversation. Speaker 1: He's now gotten both Seri and Ban Ki Moon To agree that Sari could come in Monday or Tuesday. Okay. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it And, you know, the EU. Speaker 2: Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they Build democratic skills and institutions as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to its European aspirations. We've invested over $5,000,000,000 to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure Pure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine. Speaker 3: Americans support their resistance. Protesters want closer ties to Europe, not Russia. So the primordial interest of the United States over which for century we have fought wars, the first, second cold war has been the Shipping Germany and Russia because United, they are the only force that could threaten us and to make Sure that that doesn't happen. For the United States, the primordial fear is Russian capital, Russian technology, I mean, German technology and German capital, Russian, natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell Speaker 0: States.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/JOSnDRW7br

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

How Obama And Biden Installed Neo-Nazis In Ukraine Today’s war cannot be understood without first understanding the U.S. government’s role in Ukraine's Maidan Coup. If the American people knew the truth about how Obama and Biden helped Neo-Nazi factions overthrow the elected government of Ukraine, they might not be so eager to start World War III. Today’s crisis in Ukraine cannot be understood without first understanding the U.S. government’s role in the Ukrainian Maidan Coup.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Pro-EU protests in Kyiv continue for a second day, with around 1,000 demonstrators joined by opposition leader Vitali Klitschko. The protests are in response to the government's decision not to sign a major trade deal with the EU. Investigative journalist Robert Perry explains that some NGOs are funded by governments and serve their interests rather than the people they claim to help. In the 1980s, the CIA's activities were exposed, leading to the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to carry out similar operations. NED and other US agencies supported political groups, trained activists, and influenced media to advance US foreign policy interests. Mustafa Nayan, founder of Dromadskaya TV, used social media to bring crowds to Maidan Square. Symbolism and catchy slogans were employed to unite protesters, and organizations like Huromadske TV received donations from the Dutch and US embassies and George Soros' NGO.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Pro EU protests on the streets of Kyiv enter their 2nd day. The crowd of around a 1000 protesters were joined by the leader of the opposition, the reigning world boxing champion, Vitali Klitschko. He called in the demonstrators to maintain pressure on the government after it decided not to sign a major trade deal with the EU. Speaker 1: You go back to Kyiv the next day after the meeting with Merkel and the protests Surrupt, am I right? Can you take me through that period? Speaker 2: Robert Perry is a longtime investigative journalist based Investigative journalist based in Washington DC, best known for his major disclosures about the Iran Contra scandal in the 19 eighties. He is the founder of Consortium News, where he has reported extensively on the crisis in Ukraine and the forces behind the unrest. Speaker 3: An NGO is a Nongovernmental organization. Now many NGOs are quite legitimate. They represent good causes. Maybe they help people in a country Feed or deal with water problems or deal with various kinds of social problems. But there are some NGOs That have become funded by government entities, and serve more the purpose of that government rather than trying to serve the people that they are sensibly working for. One thing we saw in the 19 eighties, at that point, the Central Intelligence Agency had been largely discredited Because of scandals that had been exposed in the 19 seventies. Speaker 4: For 15 years, the CIA has secretly financed overseas Seize activities of the National Students Association. But then there came to light a fantastic web of CIA penetrations. Speaker 3: So when the Reagan administration came in, there was this concept that instead of having the CIA, which traditionally would go into these different target countries funding their media, funding NGOs funding, different political operations. That was essentially farmed out to, a new organization called the National Endowment for Democracy which was created in 1983, and it would do pretty much what the agency used to do. It would go into one of these countries and it would support Various political groups, train activists, deal with journalists, business groups, and try to advance US foreign policy interests, sometimes against the interests of the of the host government, the target government. And beyond that, they Received financial and other logistical help from the National Endowment for Democracy and other US agencies that helped them Training activists, working with journalists to get, get their side presented more favorably. They work on things like how do you get traction? How do you get things To go viral, how do you then use that to generate support for your cause? Speaker 2: And support was generated. Speaker 1: Mustafa Nayan. Speaker 2: Mustafa Nayan, a founder of one of Ukraine's new media outlets. Dromadskaya TV knew very well how to make something go viral. It was his notorious Facebook a post on November 21, 2013 that brought the 1st crowds to Maidan. Don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you are misinformed. To deliver your message efficiently enough in the modern world with so many different technologies and means of communications, you must embrace them all. As the disturbing events of Euromaidan started on November 21, 2013, 3 new TV channels went on the air and suddenly became stunningly Popular in Ukraine. SpillNote TV, November 21st. November 22nd and Espresso TV, November 24th, directly from opposition protest. These channels went viral, supporting the protests and encouraging more and more people to come to Maidan. As veiled and masked as the color revolutions can be, an attentive The viewer can see subtle patterns and similarities revealing their true nature. To make crowds act as one obedient group. They have to be united at the unconscious level. The masterminds of color revolutions know this well and have perfected the art. Symbolism is one of the most powerful tools to achieve this end. Revolutionary political organizations with surprisingly similar names and even more similar logos have appeared time and again, almost as omens marking the countries that would be hit by the colored plague next. They're often described as being aware and active When they're actually trained and radical, they are the ones who take the first shot, literal and metaphorical, to transform the peaceful protests Into full blown coup d'etats. Their fingerprints can be found everywhere on the map of the color revolutions. Using all the experience of past generations, simple but effective tools like catchy sing Alarms and chanting are employed. Well known for exciting the crowd and creating a group identity, they depersonalize individuals and make them easier to manipulate. Incidentally, one such organization, Huromadske TV, received generous donations from the Dutch and US embassies As well as from the Renaissance Foundation, an NGO founded by George Soros. Speaker 5: I set up a foundation in Ukraine Before Ukraine became independent of, Russia, and the foundation has been, functioning ever since, And we play that an important part in events now.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/POe2zrl4dK

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

'Putin didn't want the war' John Mearsheimer on Ukraine War in Ukraine is the Fault of US, British and NATO Expansion. We Believed That We Could Win The War.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Putin initially tried to prevent the war and sought a diplomatic solution. He negotiated with Ukraine, focusing on Crimea. However, his main concern was NATO expansion into Ukraine. If Ukraine had remained neutral, the war might have been avoided. But the US and UK intervened, pressuring Ukraine to abandon negotiations. In 2022, it seemed possible for Ukraine and the West to win, but 2023 has been disastrous for Ukraine, and now it appears Russia will emerge victorious.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Putin did not want this war. He went to great lengths before February 24, 2022, when the war started to, head it off at the past. He wanted to come up with a diplomatic solution. And then shortly after the war broke out in February, he was negotiating with the Ukrainians to work out a deal. And at that point in time, he was not talking about incorporating any Ukrainian territory, save for Crimea, which had already been annexed into Russia. And all he really cared about, it's quite clear from all the reports of the people who were involved in the discussions, was NATO expansion into Ukraine. He wanted a neutral Ukraine, and if he had gotten a neutral Ukraine, this is right after the war started, I believe there's a good chance the war could have been shut down, but it was the Americans and the British who moved in and basically told Zelensky that he had to walk away from the negotiations because we believed that we could win the war, we meaning Ukraine plus the west. And in 2022, it actually looked like that might be the case. But now it's quite clear to 2023 has been a disastrous year for the Ukrainians. And if anything, the Russians will win the war.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/ebB3iZWqNY

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

How US Started the War in Ukraine?! https://t.co/kNWCcOVDLO

Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2014, three foreign ministers from Poland, Germany, and France arrived in Ukraine to sign an agreement between the government and the opposition. However, just two days later, a coup d'etat took place, orchestrated by our American allies. The European guarantors of the agreement claimed ignorance. This event, along with the desire to bring Ukraine into NATO, has led to the ongoing tragedy in the Donbas region.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So in 2014, 3 foreign ministers arrived from Europe, from Poland, Germany, and France. They signed as guarantors of the agreement between the government of the time, president Yanukovych, and the opposition. They agreed that everything would be resolved peacefully. 2 days later, they carried out a coup d'etat. Why? Why did they not decide to win through elections? They did it to make a point to create conflict. That's why. And you may ask who did this? Our American cronies. And the Europeans, who signed as guarantors of the agreement between the government and the opposition, pretended they knew nothing at all. And now you can ask anyone in Europe, does anyone remember anything about it? No. But we have not forgotten, and we won't forget this, plus the unbridled desire to crawl up to our borders, taking Ukraine into NATO. All this led to this tragedy, plus the bloody events in the Donbas region that lasted 8 years. All of this led to the tragedy we are now experiencing.
DravenNoctis
Posted - February 9, 2024 at 2:19 AM
Saved - February 9, 2024 at 10:20 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I just finished watching the Tucker/Putin interview and it was refreshing to hear Putin speak at length. He showcased his extensive knowledge of Eastern European history and explained that Ukraine is not technically a sovereign country, but rather allowed to exist independently by Russia and Poland. Putin emphasized the threat of Nazism in Ukraine and how it poses a danger to Russia, considering the millions of Russians who died fighting against the Nazis. He also discussed the 2014 coup in Ukraine, orchestrated by the CIA and the West, which led to the rise of a neo-Nazi regime. Putin highlighted the broken promises of not expanding NATO further onto Russia and the preparations for NATO bases in Ukraine. He mentioned the ongoing conflict and the need for action to protect Russians living in Ukraine. The interview covered topics such as the economy, BRICS, Orthodox Christian beliefs, and even the imprisoned American reporter. This interview provides an opportunity for Westerners to hear Putin's perspective uncensored by the mainstream media.

@DravenNoctis - Noctis Draven

I finished the Tucker/Putin interview and I must admit, I never grow tired of hearing Putin speak. It is refreshing to see a leader who obviously makes his own decisions able to speak and explain them. In the west you will never see a president or any leader for that matter give an interview for over two hours and still do most of the speaking. Western leaders are usually highly unqualified and don't know enough about their area to speak for long, read from scripts or if they do seem competent they are usually lying so they keep questions and interviews short on purpose, so this was refreshing. In summary, Putin revealed he has a very encyclopedia like knowledge of Eastern European history while explaining that technically Ukraine isn't even a sovereign country but more allowed to exist independently by Russia and Poland. This explains of course why Ukrainians and Russians share not only a language but much more. It was a long winded history lesson but important for western audiences to see so that they understand that Russia is not invading Ukraine but instead keeping NATO from expanding on its borders and rooting out Nazism that was being cultivated and nurtured by the west so that the west could turn it against Russia via proxy wars. Putin also explained why the Nazism that makes up a large part of Ukrainian culture is a threat to Russia and not simply a belief system Russia wishes to control. Common sense dictates that over 30 million Russians died fighting to defeat the Nazis, so of course allowing Nazi culture and society to spring up literally next door is dangerous and sensitive for Russians. Pair that with the fact that the US and west are all too happy to take the Nazis in Ukraine and point that rage and anger at Russia and you have yet another reason for the SMO. Ultimately Putin echoed what most of us already know, that Ukraine had been fine and peaceful on its own for many years up until the 2014 coup instigated by the CIA and collective west to install Ukrainian leadership who would better play ball with western interests. Unfortunately that new leadership would be the neo-nazi regime we know today that Russia fights against. From 2014, 2016 and on the new Ukrainian leadership would begin to punish and purge Russians living in Ukraine by violent and deadly means. This was also explained in depth by Putin to Tucker along with the many promises the west and its various leaders made to Putin and Russia that they would NOT expand NATO further onto Russia. However the once peaceful Ukraine had now begun preparing to receive NATO bases and was already receiving training. What was taking place was the west was building an army, a proxy NATO army. Between training, arming and cultivating the Nazi ideology they would have all they needed to launch their attack at Russia 🇷🇺 A last ditch effort for peace was made with the infamous peace deal that both sides had agreed upon. Boris Johnson however, came to Kiev and convinced Zelensky to tear up the agreement and stand against Russia. Thus between the cries for help by Russians being murdered by the UAF and the reality of NATO but a stones throw from Russian borders Russia knew action was needed and the SMO began and continues. Putin also talked in depth about economy, about BRICS and the Orthodox Christian beliefs. Tucker tried to talk to putin about the imprisoned American reporter as well and Putin agreed to wanting to find a solution for this. It was a much needed interview that would at long last allow westerners and Americans to hear Putin in his own words without being censored and filtered by the owned and controlled western mainstream media. I do not think this interview will change courses already charted or change events to come but at least it allows people to hear both sides of a very complicated issue. All in all, I'd highly recommend people watch it. #UkraineRussianWar #ukraine #russia #Zelensky #putin #nato #TuckerCarlson #PutinInterview

Cancelcloco
Posted - February 12, 2024 at 12:12 AM
Saved - February 12, 2024 at 12:45 AM

@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.
AI Similar Videos
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.
ivan_8848
Posted - March 19, 2024 at 2:13 AM
Saved - March 20, 2024 at 10:19 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The posts discuss the conflict in Ukraine and the role of various actors, including NATO and the United States. The posts highlight the long-standing tensions and mistakes made by both sides. The focus is on the need for peaceful negotiations and avoiding further escalation. The posts also mention the role of propaganda and misinformation in shaping public opinion. Overall, the posts provide different perspectives on the Ukraine-Russia conflict and its underlying causes.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

MUST WATCH! ENJOY! Piers Morgan vs Jeffrey Sachs What is your view of Vladimir Putin? Well, I think he's very smart, very tough, and I think he says what he means. In 2007, he said, don't do this. At the Munich security conference, famously, he said, all right, you went violating what I know to be true, by the way, which was not an inch eastward for NATO, promised by James Baker II and by Hans-Dietrich Genscher to Gorbachev in 1990. I know that's for sure the case. The United States expanded NATO to Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic in the Clinton period, and then to seven more countries in 2004. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria. And then in 2007, Putin said, stop. All right, stop. No more. Not to Ukraine. So what does George W do in 2008? In Bucharest, of course. What does he do? He says, guarantee Ukraine and Georgia. And this is Palmerston's playbook from 1853. So we're going to surround Russia in the Black Sea again. Exactly that. Okay, just to interrupt, though, I just asked you what your view of Putin is, and so far, you've just said he's smart and tough. I told you. Any negatives, professor? I believe that the big mistake of both sides is we should talk this out. And now let me say a word about talking it out. In 2008, when Bucharest happened, european leaders called me because I'm friends with them. They said, what is your crazy president doing, by the way? Some who are in power right now, I won't name names. What is your president doing? Why is he destabilising things? He promised he wasn't going to push Ukraine. That's what european leaders say in private. They don't say it in public. We avoided the negotiations. Then 2014 came, sadly, Piers. I saw some of it firsthand. It was ugly. The United States should not be funding overthrows of governments. We did. I know it. Okay. So I happened to be there soon afterwards with the handpicked government, handpicked by Victoria Nuland. We didn't talk then. Then came the Minsk agreements. And then the United States said privately, even though the UN Security Council has backed both Minsk one and Minsk II, you don't have to do this. And so with Poroshenko. Don't worry about it. Then we heard, of course, Chancellor Merkel say afterwards, yeah, we weren't taking it too seriously, even though Germany and France were the guarantors of that. Then, on December 15, 2021, Putin put it down in a draught. US Russia security agreement. I read it. I called the White House. I said, you know what you can negotiate on this basis? Avoid the war. No. There's going to be no war. Mr. Sachs. I said, just tell them that NATO is not going to enlarge. You'll avoid the war. No, we're never going to say that. We have an open door policy. So. What kind of open door policy? We've had 200 years of the Monroe doctrine. Some open door policy? No, Mr. Sachs. Then the war breaks out. Then immediately Zelensky says, okay, we can be neutral. We can be neutral and negotiations start. As you know, Naftali Bennett, informally, the prime minister of Israel and Turkey with its very skilled diplomacy. I actually flew to Ankara to discuss with the turkish diplomats what was going on. The US stopped the agreement. Why? Because they thought we'll win. We can blade sanctions, you know, cutting them out of the banking system. We're going to bring them to their knees. It's a bunch of terrible miscalculations, is what it is. It's a game. Listen. A terrible game. I hear you. What I'm fascinated by, though, is I've asked you to say what you think of Putin. And so far, like I say, you've only called him tough and smart. This is a guy that kills his political opponents. This is a guy who. This is a guy who rules his country like a gangster. I'm struggling to understand why you can't find any negatives for the guy. He's a dictator. Because I'm trying to find peace, and you don't do it the way that Biden does. Biden said, okay, he's a thug. Biden says he's a crazy sober. That's real good, Joe. That's really getting us to where we want to go. That's hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians dead. Can you not find anything negative to say about Vladimir Putin? I don't think that what I say about Putin negative has anything to do with anything. What I'm saying is, as I know. Well, you were ready to call him smart. You're ready to call him smart and smart and tough, but you can't find anything. I wrote a book about the cuban missile crisis and its aftermath. Kennedy didn't go name calling Khrushchev. He tried to save the world to stop the war afterwards. He didn't insult Khrushchev. What he did was sat down with him and negotiated the partial nuclear test ban treaty. We're not in a game. We're not in name calling. We're not in a cage brawl. We're trying to actually not have the world spiral into nuclear war. So it's not that game. The game is sit down and negotiate.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Vladimir Putin is seen as smart and tough by the speaker, who emphasizes the need for peaceful negotiations rather than name-calling. The speaker criticizes past actions by the US and European leaders regarding Ukraine, urging for dialogue and diplomacy to prevent conflict. The focus is on avoiding war and finding peaceful solutions through negotiation, referencing historical examples like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Peaceful negotiations are emphasized over insults and aggression.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What is your view of Vladimir Putin? Speaker 1: Well, I think he's very smart, very tough, and, I think he says what he means. In 2007, he said, don't do this at the Munich Security Conference famously. He said, alright. You went violating what I know to be true, by the way, which was not an inch eastward for NATO promised by James Baker the 3rd and by Hans Dietrich Dencher, to Gorbachev in 1990. I know that's for sure the case. The United States expanded NATO to Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic in, in, the Clinton period, and then to 7 more countries in 2004, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, and Bulgaria. And then in 2007, Putin said, stop. Alright? Stop. No more not to Ukraine. So what does George w do in 2008 in Bucharest? Of course. What does he do? He says, guarantee Ukraine and Georgia. And, you know, this is, Palmerston's playbook from, 18 53, so we're gonna surround Russia and the Black Sea again. Exactly that. Speaker 0: Okay. But You know I don't want to interrupt. Just to interrupt, though, I just asked you what your view of Putin is. And so far, you've just said he's smart and tough. Speaker 1: I just I told you. He he he Any any negative? Clearly. Speaker 0: Any negative, professor? Speaker 1: I believe that the big mistake of both sides is we should talk this out. And now let me say a word about talking it out. In 2008, when Bucharest happened, European leaders called me because I'm friends with them. They said, what is your crazy president doing? By the way, some who are in power right now, I won't name names, what is your president doing? Why is he destabilizing things? He promised he wasn't gonna push Ukraine. That's what European leaders say in private. They don't say it in public. We avoided the negotiations. Then 2014 came. Sadly, Piers, I saw I saw some of it firsthand. It was ugly. The United States should not be funding overthrows of governments. We did. I know it. Okay. So I happened to be there soon afterwards, with the handpicked government, handpicked by Victoria Nuland. We didn't talk then. Then came the Minsk agreements. And then the United States said privately, even though the UN Security Council has backed both mince 1 and mince mince 2, you don't have to do this. And so with Poroshenko, don't worry about it. Then then we heard, of course, chancellor Merkel say afterwards, yeah, we weren't taking it too seriously even though Germany and France were the guarantors of that. Then on December 15, 2021, Putin put it down in a draft US Russia security agreement. I read it. I called the White House. I said, you know what? You can negotiate on this basis. Avoid the war. No. No. No. There's gonna be no war, mister Sachs. I said, just tell them that NATO was not going to enlarge. You'll avoid the war. No. We're never gonna say that. We have an open door policy. So what kind of open door policy? We've had 200 years of the Monroe doctrine, some open door policy. No. No. No, mister Sachs. Then the war breaks out. Then, immediately, Zelensky says, okay. Okay. We can be neutral. We can be neutral. And, negotiations start, as you know, Naftali Bennett, informally the prime minister of Israel, and the and and Turkey with its very skilled diplomacy. I actually flew to Ankara to discuss with the Turkish diplomats what was going on. The US stopped the agreement. Why? Because they thought we'll win. We can bleed Russia. Our sanctions, you know, cutting them out of the banking system, we're gonna bring them to their knees. It's a bunch of terrible miscalculations is what it is. It's a game. Speaker 0: Listen. Speaker 1: A terrible game. Speaker 0: I hear you. What I'm fascinated by, though, is I've asked you to say what you think of Putin. And so far, like I say, you've only called him tough and smart. This is a guy that kills his political opponents. This is a guy who Yeah. Speaker 1: What's the the Speaker 0: This is a guy who rules his country like a gangster. I I find it I'm struggling to understand why you can't find any negatives for the guy. He's a dictator. Speaker 1: Because I'm trying to because I'm trying to find peace, and you don't do it the way that Biden does. Biden said, okay. He's a thug. Biden says he's a crazy SOB. That's real good, Joe. That's really getting us to where we wanna go. That's 100 of 1000 of Ukrainians dead. Speaker 0: But do you know what? Can you not find can you not find anything negative to say about Vladimir Putin? Speaker 1: I don't think that what I say about Putin negative has anything to do with anything. What I'm saying is, as I know, you Speaker 0: Well, you were already calling smart you were already calling smart and tough. I'm not sure. And that's Speaker 1: You know, in in You go to smart Speaker 0: and tough, but you can't find anything bad. To say that. Speaker 1: Wrote a book about the Cuban Missile Crisis and its aftermath. Kennedy didn't go name calling Khrushchev. He tried to save the world to stop the war. Afterwards, he didn't insult Khrushchev. What he did was sat down with him and negotiated the partial nuclear test ban treaty. We're not in a game. We're not in name calling. We're not in a cage brawl. We're trying to actually not have the world spiral into nuclear war. So it's not that game. The game is sit down and negotiate.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Brilliant!!! The best video @0rf ‼️👏👏👏 Watch Matt Orfalea Bitch Slap Those Who Said The Ukraine Invasion Was "Not About NATO" The biggest threat in the world is NATO. NATO exists to solve the problems created by NATO’s existence. NATO is a military alliance that feeds on war. To justify its existence, NATO constantly needs an external enemies and conflicts. NATO DISBAND!

Video Transcript AI Summary
Putin sent a treaty to NATO to stop enlargement, but NATO refused. The conflict isn't about NATO, but democracy in Ukraine. Some compare Putin to Hitler. The main issue is Putin's desire for influence. The war is not about NATO, but Putin's ambitions. It's a complex situation with no easy solution.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Putin actually sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And that was a precondition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. Speaker 1: So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO across his borders. Flashback. Speaker 0: 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. This was never about NATO? It's absolutely nothing to do with NATO expansionism. And it has nothing to do with NATO. Speaker 2: This is not about NATO. Speaker 1: It's not about NATO. It's not really about NATO. This is not about NATO. Seriously, it's not about Speaker 2: NATO. This was never about NATO. Speaker 3: It was never about NATO. Let's be honest. This doesn't have anything to do with NATO? Speaker 1: Nothing to do with NATO at all. Yeah. He's claiming it's, like, security purposes, but we can see the clear reason. But NATO is not the reason. Speaker 2: 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. Speaker 1: Because it's a democracy. Speaker 2: Ukraine restricts books and music. It's about democracy. Ukraine won't hold elections. Speaker 1: It's about democracy. And it's not about NATO expansion. Speaker 3: NATO expansion. Speaker 1: Nothing to do with with NATO. It isn't really about NATO. It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO enlargement. In fact, Speaker 2: it has nothing to do with NATO. It's not about NATO encroaching. So it's not about NATO. NATO is just as a fictitious imaginary adversary for for for mister Putin and for Russia. It was never about NATO. Speaker 3: That's not what it's been about. It's been about him trying to expand his sphere of influence. Speaker 4: Hang on. I mean, the 2 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 1: He wanted us to sign Speaker 0: a promise never to enlarge NATO. We rejected that. Speaker 1: The reason why Putin invaded Ukraine is because of his evil Evil. It's about that Putin wants to rebuild Soviet empire of evil like president Reagan told. It's about Putin being sick. Speaker 2: Because I don't Speaker 1: know how you negotiate peace with a madman, but nobody negotiated with Hitler. Speaker 2: People were comparing him to Hitler. To Hitler. Speaker 1: And remember Hitler? Speaker 2: He's a Hitler. Speaker 1: We're back when the the Nazis invaded Poland. Speaker 2: This is exactly the same what Hitler was doing to choose. This is the same. Putin will not stop. Speaker 4: Putin Speaker 2: Putin is reminiscent of Hitler. Hitler. This reminds me of Hitler. Hitler. Hitler. Speaker 4: He's the new Hitler. Speaker 1: Who Hitler? 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. Alright. Straight ahead.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Jeffrey Sachs: Conflict in Ukraine has been a 30 year project of the United States. This has been a long standing game, announced, explained Brzezinski laid it all out for us in 1997. MasterClass for Piers Morgan ❗️ Ukraine wanted to be part of NATO and that perhaps the biggest mistake Ukraine made was to give up its nuclear weapons. Well, I think the mistake is that Ukraine should have been a neutral buffer between Russia and NATO. And that's how it started out as an independent state in 1991. And the United States had its eye on getting Ukraine into the US orbit already from 1992. Zbigniew Brzezinski spelled it out in 1997. Many people thought this was a path to disaster and it's turned out to be a path to disaster. So it's very sad. It could have been peaceful and neutral and independent, and that wasn't good enough for the United States. And I understand completely why Russia wouldn't want NATO on the 2000 km border of Ukraine and Russia. So it's just very sad, very predictable. George Kennan called it exactly in 1997. Interestingly, our current CIA director, Bill Burns, who was in 2008, the US ambassador to Russia, sent back a famous memo called Niet means Niet. No, don't do it. It's not just Putin, it's the entire political class that absolutely rejects Ukraine and NATO. And we should have been prudent, but we're not very prudent. We had our designs and we have walked into a disaster. But more than that, we talked Ukraine into a complete disaster. I mean, the other way of looking at this is that Ukraine wanted to be a sovereign, democratic country after the breakup of the Soviet Union. In fact, vast majority of people in Ukraine voted for that and that this was the complete antithesis of how Putin saw the layover of the land and he thought, no, I'm not having that. I'm going to go and grab Crimea, then I'll grab a load of Ukraine, try it in Georgia. I mean, at what point does he do this stuff where even someone who's trying to be fair minded about his intentions, like yourself, might think, I wonder if I'm right and maybe he is just a pathological liar and a homicidal maniac. Piers. The real screw up by the US was not just pushing NATO, but playing real games and participating in the overthrow of Yanukovych in February 2014. We overthrew a government and the United States played a major role in that. I happened to see some of it firsthand. Pretty ugly, but pretty standard stuff. This is what the US does when it doesn't like a government or a government standing in the way. It stirs things up. It puts in a lot of money, it funds unrest, it stokes unrest. And it did that in February 2014. That was really the huge mistake that was a gambit, a typical so called covert, but not very covert US regime change operation. And it was absolutely the path to the disaster that we're in right now. So I think the main point is you have two sides playing a lot of games. But for the United States to be pushing so hard to Russia's border was absolutely premeditated and stupid, really stupid. It got us into this mess, and you could see it coming so clearly for the last ten years. What is your view of I begged the White House many times, avoid the war, stop. Just tell them NATO is not coming, Ukraine will do just fine. And they wouldn't do it because this has been a 30 year project of the United States also. This is how it works. This has been a long standing game, announced, explained Brzezinski laid it all out for us in 1997. So we've seen it.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Ukraine's decision to give up nuclear weapons and pursue NATO membership is criticized as a mistake. The US is blamed for pushing Ukraine towards NATO and overthrowing Yanukovych in 2014, leading to the current crisis. The speaker urges the White House to avoid war by reassuring Russia that NATO will not expand further. The situation is seen as a result of long-standing US foreign policy goals.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ukraine wanted to be part of NATO and that perhaps the biggest mistake Ukraine made was to give up its nuclear weapons. Speaker 1: Well, I think the mistake is that Ukraine should have been a neutral buffer between Russia and, and NATO, and that's how it started out as an independent state in 1991. The United States had its eye on getting Ukraine into the US orbit, already from 1992. Zbig Brozhinski spelled it out in 1997. Many people thought this was a path to disaster, and it's turned out to be a path to disaster. So it's very sad. It it could have been peaceful and neutral and independent, and that wasn't good enough for the United States. And, I understand completely why Russia wouldn't want NATO on the 2,000 kilometer border, of Ukraine and Russia. So it it's just very sad, very predictable. George Kennan called it exactly in 1997. Interestingly, our current CIA director, Bill Burns, who was in 2008, the US ambassador to Russia, sent back a famous memo called the means. No. Don't do it. It's not just Putin. It's the entire political class that absolutely rejects, Ukraine and NATO. And we should have been prudent, but we're not very prudent. We had our designs, and we have walked into a disaster. But more than that, we talked Ukraine into a complete disaster. Speaker 0: I I mean, the other way of looking at this is that Ukraine wanted to be a sovereign democratic country after the breakup of the Soviet Union. In fact, vast majority of people in Ukraine voted for that and that this was, the complete antithesis of how Putin saw the lay of the land. And he thought, no, I'm not having that. I'm gonna go and grab Crimea and I'll grab a load of Ukraine, try it in Georgia. I mean, at what point does he do this stuff where even someone who's trying to be fair minded about his intentions, like yourself, might think, I wonder if I'm right, and maybe he is just a pathological liar and a homicidal maniac. Speaker 1: Piers, the, the real screw up by the US was not just pushing NATO, but playing real games and participating in the overthrow of Yanukovych in overthrow of Yanukovych in February 2014, we overthrew a government, and the United States played a major role in that. I happen to see some of it firsthand. Pretty ugly, but pretty standard stuff. This is what the US does. When it doesn't like a government or a government standing in the way, it stirs things up. It puts in a lot of money. It funds unrest. It stokes unrest, and it did that in February 2014. That was really the huge mistake. That was a gambit, a typical so called covert but not very covert US regime change operation, and it was absolutely the path to the disaster that we're in right now. So I think the main point is you have two sides playing a lot of lot of games, but for the United States to be pushing so hard to Russia's border was absolutely premeditated and stupid, really stupid. It got us into this mess, and you could see it coming so clearly for the last 10 years. Speaker 0: What is your view Speaker 1: about it? The White House. Many I beg I beg the White House many times. Avoid the war. Stop. Just tell them NATO's not coming. You know, Ukraine will do just fine, and they wouldn't do it because this has been a 30 year project of the United States also. This is how it works. This has been a a long standing game, announced, explained. Brozinski laid it all out for us, in 1997. So we've seen it.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The Ukraine - Russian War was planned well in advance. The war in Ukraine will stop when it is stopped by the one who organized it, financed and continues to finance it. This war is provoked and inevitable. Zelensky is a puppet.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

OSCE Reports Reveal Ukraine Started Shelling The Donbas Nine Days Before Russia's 'Special Military Operation' The Biden Administration, U.S. political officials, and the corporate media are lying the American public into World War III. https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/osce-reports-reveal-ukraine-started

OSCE Reports Reveal Ukraine Started Shelling The Donbas Nine Days Before Russia's 'Special Military Operation' The Biden Administration, U.S. political officials, and the corporate media are lying the American public into World War III. kanekoa.news

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/rN1rg2bz2C

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The US/NATO Orchestration of the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine The Ukraine - Russian War Was Planned Understanding The Roots Of The Russia-Ukraine Conflict Explained By Putin https://t.co/YHodnBWoj8 Putin: We immediately said, "Guys, you can't do this, stop. No, nobody even wanted to listen. They could not fail to realise that this was a red line. We said it a thousand times. No, they did it. So here we have today's situation. And I suspect it was no accident. They needed this conflict.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses the events leading up to the Ukrainian crisis 10 years ago. It highlights the technical decision made by President Yanukovych to delay the signing of the association agreement with the EU, which sparked protests in Kiev. The video also mentions the involvement of Western countries in supporting the anti-government movement and the subsequent armed opposition in Kiev. It emphasizes the impact of these events on the entire continent and the world. The transcript also includes statements from various leaders and politicians, expressing their opinions on the situation. Overall, the video suggests that the crisis could have been resolved earlier if different approaches had been taken.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Трудно даже поверить. С чего все началось? Хотите жить как в Париже? Хотим. Давайте подписывать. А кто бы сказал? Давайте почитаем. Запад поддержал государственный переворот антиконсульцион. Зачем вы раскалываете страну? Только пусть Янукович не применяет силу, но он не применил. А вооруженная оппозиция в Киеве провела Господа. Как это понимать? Вы кто такие вообще? Там попробуйте, объясните фермерам во Франции, в той же Германии, в Испании, в Греции, в Португалии, в странах юга Европы, что нужно им немножко прижаться в интересах Украины. Я посмотрю на их реакцию, но только не каких-то функционеров, а вот работяг, которые на земле работают. Speaker 1: Слова, сказанные ровно 10 лет назад, кадры сделанные в очередной раз в Speaker 0: последние Speaker 1: украинский кризис перешедший в острую фазу ровно 10 лет назад теперь определяет жизни всего континента да и во многом всего мира Speaker 0: трудно даже поверить с чего все началось С технического решения Президента Януковича перенести подписание договора об ассоциации Украины с Евросоюзом. При этом речь шла даже не об отказе от этого документа, а только о переносе сроков с целью его доработки. Это было сделано, напомню, в полном соответствии с конституционными полномочиями абсолютно легитимного международно признанного главы государства Speaker 1: 8 2013 на украине серьезные экономические сложности и за помощью президент страны янукович обращается главному стратегическому партнеру россии систско-украинские переговоры принесли сегодня сенсационные новости, а события развивались следующим образом: буквально до самого последнего момента вообще не было известно, какие именно документы сегодня будут подписаны и вот за пять минут до начала церемонии нам раздали списки подписанных документов и мы увидели что 14 самым последним пунктом стоит документ под названием Дополнение к контрактам на куплю-продажу газа от января 2009 года. Speaker 0: Который дает возможность Газпрому, что он и намерен делать, продавать на Украину газ по цене 268 с половиной долларов за тысячу кубов. Сейчас эта цена около 400 долларов. Была, можно сказать. С целью поддержки бюджета Украины правительство Российской Федерации приняло решение разместить в ценных бумагах украинского правительства часть своих резервов из фонда национального благосостояния объемом 15 миллиардов долларов США. Хочу обратить Ваше внимание и хочу всех успокоить сегодня мы вообще не обсуждали вопрос о присоединении Украины к таможенному союзу. Speaker 1: Эти слова Путин говорит потому, что украинское общество тогда уже изрядно разогрета обещаниями ассоциации с евросоюзом а взаимодействие с таможенным союзом то есть с россией подается там как некий путь назад в киеве начинаются первые митинги Speaker 0: Киев, давай! Киев, давай! Киев, давай! Speaker 1: Украина це Европа! Украина це Speaker 0: Европа! Говорят, что у украинского народа отбирают мечту, Но если посмотреть на содержание этих соглашений, то до этой мечты многие могут просто не дожить, не дотянуть. Потому что условия очень жесткие. Очень легко спекулировать на этих вопросах. Хотите жить, как в Париже? Хотим. Speaker 1: Давайте Speaker 0: подписывать. Кто бы сказал? Давайте почитаем. Вы читали, что там написано? Нет. Вы читали эту бумагу? Нет. Никто же нифига не читает. Вы хоть читать-то умеете? Посмотрите, что там написано. Рынки открыть, денег нет, нормы и торговые, и технические регламенты вести европейские. Ну значит что, промышленность надо закрыть, Это выбор кого-то? Ну хорошо. Вот если всё это посчитать, взвесить, то тогда и молодые люди вполне могут разобраться в этом и сказать: Да, мы хотим европейских стандартов, но давайте это сделаем таким образом, чтобы предприятия завтра не закрылись машиностроительные, чтобы судостроение осталось на плаву, чтобы авиация не померла, чтобы космическая отрасль не сдохла. Все эти рынки и кооперация в Speaker 1: России. Эти кадры разобраны посекундно, что фиксируют действительно судьбоносные моменты. Лидеры стран Евросоюза, до этого годами рассказывавшие о демократии и праве выбора, устраивают публичную порку президенту независимой страны януковичу за принятые им решения Speaker 0: украина приостанавливает, не прекращает, а приостанавливает процесс подписания договора с Евросоюзом и хочет все, что называется, посчитать как следует. По сути, мы услышали угрозы со стороны наших европейских партнеров в отношении Украины, вплоть до способствования проведению акций протеста. Вот это и есть давление, вот это и есть шантаж. Speaker 1: Многие жители украины россии недоумевают по поводу все новых и новых кадров из Киева митинги становятся все агрессивнее в центре столицы неприкрыто начинают действовать боевики. Speaker 0: Все что сейчас происходит говорит о том что это не революция, а хорошо подготовленная акция. Эти акции, на мой взгляд, были подготовлены не к сегодняшнему дню, они готовились к президентской выборной кампании весны 2015 года. Просто это небольшой фальш-старт, но это все заготовки к президентским выборам. Хорошо подготовленные и обученные группы боевиков, на самом деле. Вы за или против подписания Украиной соглашения об ассоциации с Европейским Союзом? Мы не за и не против, это вообще не наше дело, это суверенное право украинского народа, украинского руководства, лице президента, парламента и правительства. Правительства. Если бы нам сказали, что Украина в НАТО вступает, тогда мы были бы против реально, потому что продвижение к нашим границам инфраструктуры военного блока для нас представляет опасность Speaker 1: экономические вопросы раз за разом подчеркивает путин суверенное дело украинского руководства но невозможно не учитывать серьезнейшие связи предприятия России и Украины. Speaker 0: Я бы попросил наших друзей в Брюсселе воздержаться от резких выражений, Что, нам для того, чтобы им понравиться, нужно удавить целые отраслью нашей экономики? И я бы полагал, что нужно деполитизировать эту тему, согласиться с предложением Президента Януковича и в трехстороннем формате как следует и обстоятельно на эти все темы поговорить. Speaker 1: В здании европейской комиссии на множестве телевизоров с пометкой горячая новость постоянно идут трансляции с украины январь 14 года руководство Еврокомиссии призывают януковича к сдержанности настаивает на неприменении силы против боевиков на улицах но не видит ничего странного в том что в акциях на майдане против легитимной власти участвуют высокопоставленные западные политики и Speaker 2: меньше на украина ди всем утичкима Люди на Украине, которые так мужественно вышли на улицы и провели демонстрации, вызывают у нас огромное уважение. Впечатляет сколько людей демонстрируют, что они хотят быть ближе к Европейскому Союзу в рамках закона на основе демократических процессов. Speaker 3: Все, что происходит это воплощение надежд Сирии и Украины, их жажды свободы, честных выборов и усталости от взяточничества. Я могу себе представить, как Speaker 0: бы наши европейские партнеры отреагировали, если бы в разгар кризиса, скажем, в Греции либо на Кипре на одном из митингов антиевропейских появился бы наш министр иностранных дел и начал бы обращаться с какими-то призывами. Наши друзья, европейские тоже, обратились с призывом к Президенту, к Правительству не допускать применения силы и так далее. Применение силы это всегда крайняя мера, я с ними согласен абсолютно. Но, знаете, мы сегодня в ходе беседы, я тоже об этом сказал, на Западной Украине священнослужитель призывает толпу ехать в Киев и громить правительство и дальше аргументация чтобы в нашем доме не командовали негры москали то есть русские и жиды вы знаете, это крайне удивительно, что это делает представитель религиозной деятельности а во-вторых это ведь крайнее проявление национализма абсолютно неприемлемое в цивилизованном мире и призывая украинское правительство и президент Януковича действовать цивилизованными методами мы должны обратить внимание и на его политических противников призвать и их тоже придерживаться методов цивилизованной политической борьбы Speaker 1: сейчас почему-то не принято вспоминать но вообще-то массовые беспорядки еще в январе 14 года начались не на донбассе а на западе украины винница штурм здания областной администрации и здесь и в же томире параллельно погромы в Ровно Захват административного здания в Черновцах. Драки и штурм в Черкассах. И вот уже половине страны захвачена власть донбасс тогда молчит наблюдает ждет когда по закону будет наведен порядок в россии тоже надеются на нормализации обстановки в братской стране сочи стартуют олимпийские игры которым россии готовилась долгие 7 лет. Украинские, белорусские и российские спортсмены в олимпийской деревне живут все вместе. Белорусскую сборную на Олимпиаде поддержит президент Александр лукашенко украинский лидер также приедет сочи путин проводит отдельную встречу с украинской олимпийской сборной желает спортсменам успехов Speaker 0: очень хорошая атмосфера создается болельщиками вот конечно болеет за своих но в целом очень желательно и поддерживать всех спортсменов в том числе и других команд страшно все подобрано неожиданно Speaker 1: из Киева начинают приходить совсем уж страшные кадры стрельба убийства массовые Speaker 0: жертвы Speaker 1: С Киева начинают приходить совсем уж страшные кадры стрельба убийства массовые жертвы с момента переворота в Киеве это первый большой публичный комментарий российского президента о произошедшем и происходящем. Speaker 0: Это антиконституционный переворот и вооруженный захват власти. А что было проще сказать в тот момент времени? Вы там переворот совершили? Нет, мы же гаранты, министр иностранных дел Польши, Франции, Германии, как гаранты подписали документ соглашение между президентом Януковичем и оппозицией. Через три дня все это растоптали. А где гаранты? Спросите у них, где они эти гаранты. Почему они не сказали: Ну-ка, пожалуйста, назад все вернитесь. Януковича верните назад! И проводите конституционные демократические выборы. Speaker 4: Я подписал это соглашение, вместе с ними поставил свою подпись, Но я не услышал от них даже слов осуждения в сторону бандитов, которые стреляли в мой кортеж, в мою охрану, и не один раз. Speaker 0: Нам все время говорили, только пусть Янукович не применяет силу, только пусть не применяет силу, но он не применил. Speaker 3: Важно также убедиться в том, что украинские военные не будут вовлечены в кризис, который должен быть разрешен гражданским обществом. Speaker 0: 21 числа вечером мне президент Обама позвонил, мы с ним обсудили эти вопросы, сказали о том, как мы будем способствовать исполнению этих договорённостей, Россия взяла на себя определённые обязательства. Я услышал, что мой американский коллега готов взять на себя определенные обязательства. Это все было 21 вечером. В тот же день мне позвонил Президент Янукович, сказал, что он подписал, считает, что ситуация стабилизировалась, и он собирается поехать в Харьков на конференцию. Не скрою, это не секрет, я выразил определенную озабоченность, сказал, возможно ли в такой ситуации покидать столицу. Он ответил, что считает возможным, поскольку есть документ, подписанный с оппозиции, и министр иностранных дел европейских стран выступили гарантами исполнения этой договоренности. Скажу вам еще больше. Я ему ответил, что я сомневаюсь в том, что все так будет хорошо, но это его дело, он же в конце концов президент, он чувствует ситуацию, ему виднее, как поступать. Во всяком случае, мне кажется, нельзя выводить силу правопорядка из Киева, сказал ему я. Он сказал: Да, конечно, это я понимаю. Уехал и дал команду вывести все силы правопорядка из Киева. Красавец Леша. Я Speaker 4: верил в порядочность иностранных посредников. Меня не просто обманули, меня цинично обманули, но не меня обманули, обманули весь украинский народ. Speaker 0: Янукович свою власть практически сдал. Он согласился на все, что требовала оппозиция. Он согласился на досрочные выборы парламента, на досрочные выборы Президента, согласился вернуться к Конституции 2004 года. Вы там Януковича успокоите, а мы успокоим оппозицию. Янукович не применил, как просили нас американцы, ни вооруженных сил, ни полиции. А вооруженная оппозиция в Киеве провела госпереворот. Как это понимать? Вы кто такие вообще? Неохота здесь камеры работают, жесты определенные показывать. Вы понимаете, какие жесты мне сейчас хочется показать. Вот что они нам показали. Поняли, что окончательно свинтить Украину под себя исключительно политическими средствами не удается, совершили госпереворот, лишили нас шансов нормальным политическим образом выстраивать отношения с этой страной. Они действовали и пошли, как у нас в народе говорят, простите за моветон, по беспределу просто. Уже началась гражданская война и хаос. Кому это, зачем это надо было делать, если Янукович и так со всем согласился? Надо было пойти на выборы, и те же люди пришли бы сейчас к власти только легальным путем. Мы, как идиоты, платили бы 15 миллиардов, которые обещали, держали бы низкие цены на газ, дальше продолжали субсидировать экономику. И давайте прямо, здесь же все взрослые люди, правильно, умные, грамотные люди. Запад поддержал государственный переворот антиконстуционный. Что дальше? Вот смотрите, госпереворот совершили, с нами разговаривать не хотят, у нас какие мысли? Следующий шаг Украина в НАТО. Мы считаем, что с нами пытались разговаривать с помощью силы, и что мы, именно действуя в такой логике, дали адекватные ответы. Мы не создавали этого кризиса, мы были противниками такого развития событий. Не мы же там пирожки раздавали повстанцам на этот счет. Да, мы понимаем, там сложные процессы, но не таким же образом их нужно решать, причём где? Прямо у наших границ. Но вы где находитесь? За тысячи километров? А мы здесь? Это наша Земля. Вы за что хотите там бороться? Не знаете? А мы знаем, и мы на это готовы. Я бы никогда не стал этого делать, если бы не считал, что мы обязаны поступить именно таким образом. Что касается хронологии событий, то сначала произошел государственный переворот и захват власти, и вот с этого момента наши взгляды и пути с руководством Украины стали диаметрально противоположными. С этого момента мы с ними разошлись. Но после этого Крым вернулся в состав Российской Федерации, а не наоборот. Так что у нас отношения испортились с Украиной, с Крымом в принципе не связано. Мы разве какие-то операции в Крыму или где-то еще проводили с нормальной страной и с нормальной властью? Нет, никогда этого не делали, в голове даже этого не держали. Но зачем же западные страны поддержали государственный переворот? С этого момента для нас власть на Украине источник власти, госпереворот, а не воля народа. Speaker 1: Откуда вам это известно? Очень просто, Speaker 0: потому что люди, которые живут на Украине, у нас с ними тысяча совместных всяких контактов и тысяча связей И мы знаем, кто, где, когда встречался, работал с теми людьми, которые свергали Януковича, как их поддерживали, сколько платили, как готовили, на каких территориях, в каких странах и кто были эти инструкторы. Мы все знаем. Speaker 1: Вы уважаете суверенитет Украины? Speaker 0: Конечно. Но мы хотели бы, чтобы и другие страны уважали суверенитет других стран, в том числе и Украины. А уважать суверенитет это значит не допускать государственных переворотов. Это кто делал? Американские наши дружки. А европейцы, которые подписались как гаранты договоренности между властью и оппозицией, сделали вид, что вообще ничего не знают. С этого всё началось. Сейчас говорят: ну давайте об этом не будем вспоминать. Нет, будем помнить об этом всегда, потому что в этом причина, и причина в тех людях, которые способствовали этому перевороту. Но Speaker 1: даже после сотен жертв, документальных кадров кровавых побоищ, та же Меркель, и спустя годы, публично говорила: Speaker 2: Мы считаем, что украинское правительство пришло к власти демократическим путем. Speaker 0: Если мы будем вот так вот с разными стандартами подходить к одинаковым явлениям, что мы никогда ни о чем не сможем договориться. Мы должны утвердить, в конце концов, не право сильного и право кулака в международных делах, а нормы международного права. Speaker 1: -Конфликт на Украине и вокруг нее, который разгорелся ровно 10 лет назад, который сейчас поставил мир на грань третьей мировой войны, мог быть урегулирован еще тогда, в феврале 14-го. Speaker 0: Вы же сразу сказали: ребята, так нельзя, остановитесь. Нет, никто ее слушать не хотел. Они же не могли не понимать, что это красная черта, мы тысячу раз об этом сказали, нет, полезли. Вот мы получили сегодняшнюю ситуацию. Я подозреваю, что не случайно им нужен был этот конфликт. Speaker 1: В результате сша разорвали связи россии и европы разожгли вооруженный конфликт между братскими народами но и по своему положению в мире нанесли такой удар от которого некогда глобальный лидер уже вряд ли когда-либо оправиться

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/VdXEQCpDok

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

They promised NATO would not expand to the East! At the🇩🇪reunification meeting (GDR and FRG) in 1990,🇩🇪Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher told his US counterpart, James Baker, that NATO would not expand to the East. Present also is E. Schevardnadze, Soviet Foreign Minister. https://t.co/pIvSMNMQfi

Video Transcript AI Summary
The West promised not to expand NATO eastward in exchange for German reunification. The then Foreign Minister in Washington made significant commitments, stating that there was no intention to extend the defense area to the east, not just in relation to East Germany, but in general.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Im Gegenzug zur deutschen Einheit verspricht der Westen, die NATO nicht weiter nach Osten vorrücken zu lassen. In Washington macht der damalige Außenminister weitreichende Zusagen. Speaker 1: Wir waren uns einig, dass nicht die Absicht besteht, das Radioverteidigungsgebiet auszudehnen nach Osten. Das gilt übrigens nicht nur in Bezug auf die DDR, die wir da nicht einverleiben wollen, sondern das gilt ganz generell.
TonySeruga
Posted - March 31, 2024 at 9:15 PM
Saved - April 1, 2024 at 1:26 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The author expresses strong criticism towards those who engage in virtue signaling and highlights their lack of trustworthiness. They believe that a dark situation is unfolding in Ukraine, with potential consequences for those involved. The author accuses celebrities and others of causing the deaths and injuries of many Ukrainians, attributing it to the pursuit of wealth by global elites. They also criticize President Zelensky, claiming he is not a true warrior and has questionable affiliations. The author mentions the destruction of cities, the involvement of sex traffickers and organ harvesters, and the corruption of Ukrainian leaders. They argue that the conflict is the responsibility of Ukraine, the American CIA, and NATO. The author questions the motives behind Russia's actions and highlights the presence of American bioweapons labs in Ukraine. They criticize the military-industrial-congressional complex and the mishandling of funds and weaponry.

@TonySeruga - Tony Seruga

All of your virtue signaling 🇺🇦 flag waving bullsh*t, hoping you’ll get attention, get noticed, acknowledged, for being like some great humanitarian, you are a fraud at which point no opinion you have about ANYTHING can be trusted. PERIOD. What is happening in Ukraine is so dark, when it comes out, and it will, heads will roll, but this time it won’t be innocents. You are uneducated, misinformed and clueless! You all, along with the entitled, virtue signaling, uninformed or low informed celebrities have ALL gotten well over 500,000 Ukrainians killed and another million plus injured, at least 1.5 million innocent Ukrainian’s blood on their hands, they are bloodletting these poor souls in order to make the global elites even more wealthy, i.e., BlackRock, Sequoia Capital, which is the Chinese Communist Party funding the People’s Liberation Army, and stealing U.S. corporations and defense company intellectual property, Blackstone, State Street, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, BAE, United Technologies, L-3 Communications, et al. And Zelensky is not a warrior. He’s an LGBT dancer/actor pretending to be warrior/president. He will never die for Ukraine. Zelensky will take the money and run. Already owning a mansion in Florida and most recently purchased a $17 million luxury apartment/condo in Dubai. His sort is common and predictable. He also not only sympathizes with but supports Nazis. Not to mention the 7-8 million plus Ukrainians that fled their country, most will never return, these cities have been leveled and BlackRock, using U.S. taxpayer money, will rebuild, but the prices will be out of reach of most Ukrainians, that’s the plan. Next are the least 500,000 young children taken by sex traffickers and organ harvesters. These evil SOBs make Josef Mengele look like mother Teresa. You and all the other supporters of this needless war will go down in history for what you encouraged. Had ALL Americans stood firm, Russia and Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate a settlement. Do you even know why Russia attacked and what the provocation was? The history? Were you aware of just how corrupt Ukraine leaders are? Before the war, Ukraine was considered the most corrupt country in the world. Of course the Russians are no angels, but Ukraine, the American CIA and NATO are 100% responsible for this conflict. Did you know the American military and CIA had bioweapons labs in Ukraine. And Russia was protecting their only warm water port. Next, having NATO even considering admitting Ukraine would be tantamount to North Korea or Iran being allowed by the Pentagon to move troops into Tijuana, Mexico. So sad you’ve allowed the U.S. to gaslight you. Did you know, for example, most of the money never even leaves the U.S.? It goes to the military–industrial–congressional complex (MICC), notice ‘congressional’ in the REAL name. Those defense firms basically stole the money and sent outdated weapons and ammunition that should have been destroyed 30 years ago. It’s criminal. And even then, 70% of those bargain basement weapons and ammunition never make it to Ukraine. Watch this report from CBS before the White House and Pentagon ordered it removed!

@TonySeruga - Tony Seruga

This was the report CBS pulled after the Biden White House had a conniption. Image only 30% of the weapons/supplies being sent to Ukraine even making it there and being so corrupt, you’re perfectly okay with that?

ivan_8848
Posted - July 26, 2024 at 8:59 AM
Saved - November 11, 2024 at 2:12 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve been reflecting on the Ukraine war and its roots, emphasizing that it was never just about NATO. Many argue that U.S. actions, including the overthrow of Yanukovych and NATO's eastward expansion, provoked Russia. Jeffrey Sachs and others highlight that the war could have been avoided with proper negotiations and respect for agreements like Minsk II. There’s a consensus that the conflict serves the interests of global elites, and NATO's existence perpetuates war. The narrative of an unprovoked invasion is misleading; the complexities of history reveal a different story.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

"Not About Nato" "Never About NATO" "Nothing to Do With NATO" NATO training, NATO weapons, NATO mercenaries, NATO specialists, NATO intelligence, NATO money. UKRAINE WAR

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Putin sent a draft treaty demanding NATO not to expand, which was a precondition for avoiding war in Ukraine. NATO expansion is not the core issue; the conflict is about Ukraine's democratic integrity and Putin's desire to rebuild a Soviet-like empire. Ukraine is facing restrictions on political parties, religious organizations, and free expression, which highlights the struggle for democracy. The invasion stems from Putin's ambitions rather than NATO's actions. Comparisons are drawn between Putin and historical figures like Hitler, emphasizing the threat he poses not only to Ukraine but globally. The conversation underscores the need to recognize the true motivations behind the conflict, which are rooted in power and influence rather than NATO's presence.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Putin actually sent 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 1: Flashback. Speaker 0: This is fundamentally not about NATO expansion. Speaker 2: It was Speaker 1: never about NATO enlargement. 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 2: This is not about NATO. Not about NATO. Speaker 1: It's not really about NATO. This is not about NATO. Seriously, it's not about Speaker 3: NATO. Speaker 2: This was never about NATO. Speaker 1: It was never about NATO. Let's be honest. Speaker 2: This doesn't have anything to do with NATO? Speaker 1: Nothing to do with NATO at all. Speaker 2: Yeah. He's claiming it's, like, security purposes, but we Speaker 1: can see the clear reason. Speaker 3: But NATO is not the reason. Speaker 1: This is Speaker 2: 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. Speaker 1: Because it's a democracy. Ukraine restricts Speaker 2: books and music. It's about democracy. Ukraine won't hold elections. It's about democracy. And it's not about NATO expansion. Speaker 1: This war in Ukraine is not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It has Speaker 3: nothing to do with NATO. Speaker 2: 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. It's not about NATO enlargement. In fact, it has nothing to do with NATO. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO encroaching. Speaker 3: It's not about NATO. NATO is just as a fictious imaginary adversary for for for mister Putin and for Russia. Speaker 2: It was never about NATO. Speaker 1: That's not what it's been about. It's been about him trying to expand his sphere of influence. Speaker 3: Hang on. I mean, the 2 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 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 Speaker 2: Evil. Speaker 0: It's about that Putin wants to rebuild Soviet empire of evil like president Reagan told. Speaker 2: It's about Putin being sick. I don't Speaker 1: know how you negotiate peace with a madman, but Nobody negotiated with Hitler. People are comparing him to Hitler. To Hitler. Remember Hitler. Speaker 2: He's a Hitler. Speaker 1: We're back when the Nazis invaded Poland. Speaker 2: This is exactly the same what Hitler was doing to choose. Speaker 1: This is the same. Putin will not stop. Speaker 2: Putin is reminiscent of Hitler. Hitler. This reminds me of Hitler. Hitler. Hitler. Speaker 3: 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. Alright. Straight ahead.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/2QiQ3kTUvI

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Piers Morgan Has Received Totally 100% Real and Accurate Lesson in Geopolitical History From Jeffrey Sachs ENJOY‼️‼️‼️ 📑You seem very reliant on accepting Putin's worldview rather than perhaps the stark reality of the barbarism with which he's executed this war. Yeah, 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 78 days to change borders of a european state. The idea was to break Serbia, to create Kosovo as an enclave, and then to install Bondsteel, 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 Kiev 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 Kiev led to the Minsk II agreement. The Minsk II 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 Ukrainian 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 Die Zeit in a notorious interview after the 2022 escalation. She said, oh, you know, we knew that Minsk two was just a holding pattern to give Ukraine time to build its strength. No, Minsk too 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, Piers, is I know the United States government, I know it very well. I don't trust them for a moment. I want these two sides actually to sit down in front of the whole world and say, these are the terms. Then the world can judge, because we could get on paper clearly for both sides of the world, we're not going to overthrow governments anymore. The United States needs to say, we accept this agreement. The United States needs to say, Russia needs to say, we're not stepping 1ft 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 once in a while, treaties actually hold.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The U.S. has a history of intervening in foreign conflicts without UN authority, such as the bombing of Belgrade, wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and the overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya. In Ukraine, the U.S. supported the ousting of Yanukovych despite a prior agreement for early elections and national unity. The Minsk II agreement, aimed at resolving the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, was ignored by the U.S. government, which viewed it as a means for Ukraine to strengthen militarily. Trust in the U.S. is lacking, and there is a call for both sides to negotiate openly, with clear terms that prevent future interventions and respect existing boundaries. Treaties should be upheld for lasting peace.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You seem very reliant on accepting Putin's worldview 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 2 was the US bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a European state. The idea was to break Serbia to create Kosovo as an enclave and then to install Bondasteel, 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 Nurmur Qaddafi. And then what it did in Kiev 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, 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 2 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 Ukrainian said, we don't wanna 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 in a notorious interview after the 2022 escalation. She said, oh, you know, we knew that Minsk 2 was just a a holding pattern to give Ukraine time to build its strength. No. Minsk 2 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, Pew, is is I know the United States government. I know it very well. I don't trust them for a moment. I want these two sides actually to sit down in front of the whole world and say these are the terms, then the world can judge because we could get on paper clearly for both sides of the world. We're not 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.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/ET4HGOvsd3

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Russia is Aggressively Approaching NATO More Than 1000 km Everything Is Putin’s Fault! "Not About Nato" | "Never About NATO" | "Nothing to Do With NATO" | UKRAINE WAR NATO training, NATO weapons, NATO mercenaries, NATO specialists, NATO intelligence, NATO money. ... but nothing to do with NATO. Facts 👇

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Putin sent a draft treaty to NATO, demanding no further enlargement as a condition to avoid invading Ukraine, which NATO rejected. The conflict is not about NATO expansion; it's about democracy and Putin's desire to expand his influence. Ukraine is facing internal issues, such as banning political parties and restricting freedoms, while the war is framed as a fight for democracy. Some draw parallels between Putin and historical figures like Hitler, suggesting that his actions are reminiscent of past aggressions. Ultimately, the narrative emphasizes that NATO is not the core issue; the war stems from Putin's ambitions and actions.
AI Similar Videos
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 he sent us. And 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 close to his borders. Speaker 1: Flashback. Speaker 0: This is fundamentally not about NATO expansion. Speaker 1: It was never about NATO enlargement. It's not about NATO. It's not Speaker 2: about NATO expanding toward Russia. This was never about NATO? It's absolutely nothing to do with NATO expansionism. Speaker 1: It has nothing to do with NATO. This is not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It's not really about NATO. Speaker 2: This is not about NATO. Seriously, it's not about NATO. This was never about NATO. Speaker 1: It was never about NATO. Let's be honest. Speaker 2: This doesn't have anything to do with NATO. Nothing to do with NATO at all. Speaker 1: Yeah. He's claiming it's, like, security purposes, but we can see the clear reason. But Speaker 2: NATO is not the reason. Speaker 1: This is not about NATO expansion. This is about the democratic expansion. Speaker 2: 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. Elections. Speaker 1: It's about democracy. And it's not Speaker 2: about NATO expansion. This war Speaker 1: in Ukraine is not about NATO. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It Speaker 1: has nothing to do with NATO. Nothing to do with NATO expansion. It's not about NATO expansion. Speaker 2: Nothing to do with Speaker 3: with NATO. It isn't really Speaker 2: about NATO. It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO enlargement. In fact, it has nothing to do with NATO. It's not about NATO encroaching. Speaker 1: So it's Speaker 2: not about NATO. NATO is just as a fictitious imaginary adversary for for Speaker 1: for mister Putin and for Russia. Speaker 2: It was never about NATO. Speaker 1: That's not what it's been about. It's been about him trying to expand his sphere of influence. Speaker 3: Hang on. I mean, the 2 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 0: He wanted us to sign the promise never to enlarge NATO. We rejected that. Speaker 1: The reason why Putin invaded Ukraine Speaker 2: 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 2: It's about Putin being sick. I don't know how you negotiate peace with a madman, but nobody negotiated with Hitler. People were comparing him to Hitler. Hitler. Remember Hitler? Speaker 1: He's a Hitler. Speaker 2: We're back when the the Nazis invaded Poland. Speaker 1: This is exactly the same Speaker 2: what Hitler was doing to choose. Speaker 1: This is the same. Putin will not stop. Speaker 2: Putin is reminiscent of Hitler. Hitler. This reminds me of Speaker 1: Hitler. Hitler. Hitler. Speaker 3: He's the new Hitler. Speaker 1: Oh, Hitler. Speaker 2: 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, it was great to talk to you. Thanks so much. Thank you. Alright. Straight ahead.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/oSN20t4Bpu

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

MUST WATCH👏👏👏‼️‼️‼️ Ukraine war cause and the end game explained: War of the globalist elite, Blackrock, and bankers. Colonel Douglas Macgregor: 📑 In Ukraine, which I think happening there. And what, do you know, what is the end game? Well, for the globalists that are running the show, this is a globalist neocon elite, both on the hill as well as in the White House. And these elites in Europe, particularly in Paris, Berlin, London, they're all interested in seeing Blackrock take over Ukraine, number one, so that it can be systematically stripped of its resources and turned into a subjugated state that belongs to the larger globalist elites. But they also want to see that happen to Russia, which is why this war was never about Ukraine. It was always about what can be done to destroy Russia. And of course, since the people in charge didn't perform any strategic analysis, they never thought about purpose, method, or end state. They concluded that Russia today is still the Russia of 1992. It's weak, it's prostrate, its economy is ineffective. Remember the McCain statement, oh, Russia is Spain with a gas station. All of these arrogant displays of american hubris, treating Russia as though it was a third class nation with a fourth class military. Well, we're getting an education right now. We paid no attention to the Russians, who had legitimate concerns about what we were doing in eastern Ukraine. We were building an army to attack them. We put a hostile government into that country in 2014. And we kept telling them that it made no difference to us what they thought or what they cared about. They said, we don't want NATO on our border. No one paid attention. President Trump tried to listen, but he was surrounded by people who subverted him, people who were not loyal to the president, who took an oath of obedience to the orders of the president and then ignored them. So what's the outcome? You've got a very serious war that could become regional, even global, and no one in the White House seems to really grasp that. But we're losing. The globalists are losing. And when the ground dries, and in June, you're going to see a massive russian offensive. And most of what we call this thing called Ukraine is going to be swept away, especially that government in Kiev. But that government doesn't represent the interests of the ukrainian people. They represent the interests of this globalist elite who are interested in resources and stripping them and using them and exploiting them to make money. Yeah, it feels like the biggest threat to America is actually what's happened to the petrodollar. When you have Putin now talking with the Saudis and Putin now talking with Xi, and you get rid of the petrodollar, and all of a sudden all that borrowing that we do where we're living way above our means, that's no longer possible, plausible or worse. I think what you're saying is this war has become financial as well as military. And the globalists understand that they're going to lose this war. And what will come of this is that the BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, are going to be increased by 81 additional members. And all of these people are going to go to a currency that is backed by gold. And once they go to that currency backed by gold, whether it is one currency or a basket of currencies, it doesn't make any difference. Yes, we are in a lot of trouble. The globalists know that, and it is why they are so desperate right now. And the greatest fear that I have is that when the Russians do attack and it becomes abundantly clear that Ukraine is finished, I mean, it's already obvious to anybody who visits the place for any length of time. It's in ruins. But once that occurs, I fear that there will be pressure to commit US forces in Poland and Romania, along with Polish forces and potentially Romanian ones, to western Ukraine. And if that occurs, the gloves will come off, because truthfully, thus far, Putin has exercised tremendous restraint, tremendous patience. He does not want a war with the west. If he wanted that, wed already have it. But if we intervene in western Ukraine, it's over. We'll be in a full fledged war. Expand on that a little bit, because it's sort of interesting. You know, I think we grossly miscalculated. Putin had made several speeches over the last 20 years, repeatedly saying, please do not advance the border to Russia. Do not try to transform Ukraine into a hostile actor, an actor with hostile intentions towards Russia. What happens in Ukraine is of existential strategic interest to us, just as theoretically, what happens in Mexico is of existential strategic interest to us. Although this administration has decided to ignore it. He expected that we would negotiate, that he would demonstrate that this was serious, and that Russia wanted its population in eastern Ukraine, which is really russian, to have equal rights before the law. He wanted to end the oppression of the Russians that lived there, and he wasn't going to surrender Crimea. The reason he went into Crimea is he was afraid it was going to 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 Kolomoisky, 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 31, 31 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 and are being encouraged to do so by the administration. Is that what you want in the ground force, to fight for this country? Forget it. It's not going to work.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The conflict in Ukraine is driven by globalist elites aiming to exploit the region's resources, with a focus on undermining Russia rather than supporting Ukraine. The current U.S. leadership has underestimated Russia, failing to recognize its strategic interests and the consequences of NATO's expansion. The war has financial implications, with the potential shift away from the petrodollar threatening U.S. economic stability. As Russia prepares for a significant offensive, there are concerns about U.S. military involvement in Eastern Europe, which could escalate into a larger conflict. Putin has shown restraint but may respond aggressively if Western forces intervene. The situation reflects a severe miscalculation by U.S. leadership, which is unprepared for a prolonged military engagement.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Or in Ukraine, which is happening there. What do you you know, what what is the endgame? Speaker 1: Well, for the globalists that are running the show, this is a globalist neo con elite in both on the hill as well as in the White House and these elites in Europe, particularly in Paris, Berlin, London. They're all interested in seeing BlackRock take over Ukraine, number 1, so that it can be systematically stripped of its resources and turned into a subjugated state that belongs to the larger globalist elites. But they also wanna see that happen to Russia, which is why this war was never about Ukraine. It was always about what can be done to destroy Russia. And, of course, since the people in charge didn't perform any strategic analysis, they never thought about purpose, method, or end state. They concluded that Russia today is still the Russia of 1992. It's weak. It's prostrate. Its economy is ineffective. Remember the McCain statement? Oh, Russia is Spain with a gas station. All of these arrogant displays of American hubris, treating Russia as though it was a third class nation with a 4th 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 1 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 1 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 interest of the Ukrainian people. They represent the interest of this globalist elite who are interested in resources and stripping them and using them and exploiting them to make money. Speaker 0: Yeah. It feels like, you know, the biggest threat to America is actually what's happened to the petrodollar. When you have Putin now talking with the Saudis and Putin now talking with Xi, and you get rid of the petrodollar and all of a sudden all that borrowing that we do, where we're living way above our means, that's no longer possible, plausible, or or worse. Speaker 1: I think what you're saying is this war has become financial as well as military, and the globalists understand that they're going to lose this war. And what will come of this is that the BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, are going to be increased by 81 additional members. And all of these people are going to go to a currency that is backed by gold. And once they go to that currency backed by gold, whether it is 1 currency or a basket of currencies, it doesn't make any difference. Yes. We are in a lot of trouble. The globalists know that, and it is why they are so desperate right now. And the greatest fear that I have is that when the Russians do attack and it becomes abundantly clear that Ukraine is finished. I mean, it's already obvious to anybody who visits a place for any length of time. It's in ruins. But once that occurs, I fear that there will be pressure to commit US forces in Poland and Romania along with Polish forces and potentially Romanian ones to Western Ukraine. And if that occurs, the gloves will come off because truthfully, thus far, Putin has exercised tremendous restraint, tremendous patience. He does not want a war with the west. If he wanted that, we'd already have it. But if we intervene in Western Ukraine, it's over. We'll be in a full fledged war. Speaker 0: Expand on that a little bit because it's sort of interesting. You know? Speaker 1: I think we've grossly miscalculated. Putin had made several speeches over the last 20 years repeatedly saying, please do not advance the border to Russia. Do not try to transform Ukraine into a hostile actor, an actor with hostile intentions towards Russia. What happens in Ukraine is of the existential strategic interest to us just as theoretically, what happens in Mexico is of existential strategic interest to us, although this administration has decided to ignore it. He expected that we would negotiate, that he would demonstrate that this was serious and that Russia wanted 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 he 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, Kolomoisky, 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 31 31 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 and 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.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/foarxpw0Dl

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The Ukraine - Russian War Was Provoked! Finally the Truth Be Told!!! Jeffrey Sachs: The Untold History of the Cold War Thanks Tucker for bringing the truth to light! Everyone Should Read This! The Ukraine - Russian War was planned well in advance. Professor Jeffrey Sachs is the President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. He is the author of many best selling books, including The End of Poverty and The Ages of Globalization. Here he is with probably the smartest and most accurate assessment of the Ukraine war, and American foreign policy more broadly, ever caught on tape.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022 was labeled unprovoked, but the narrative oversimplifies complex geopolitical dynamics. The U.S. aimed to align Ukraine with NATO, encroaching on Russia's borders, a strategy rooted in historical imperialism dating back to the 19th century. This expansionist approach disregarded Russia's concerns, which had sought cooperation after the Cold War. Promises made to Russian leaders about NATO's non-expansion were broken, leading to heightened tensions. The U.S. actions, including military bases and missile deployments near Russia, were perceived as aggressive, prompting a defensive response from Moscow. Ultimately, the situation reflects a long-term strategy of U.S. dominance rather than a mere unprovoked attack.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. So the the one thing that we know, we heard about the movement of Russian troops into Eastern Ukraine in February of 2022 was it was unprovoked. Here's a here's a selection of what we know about that. Speaker 1: Russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of Ukraine without provocation, without justification, without necessity. This is a premeditated attack. Russia's unprovoked and cruel invasion has galvanized countries from around the world. Speaker 0: Russia's unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine. Speaker 1: Russia conducted an unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine. This unprovoked Russian war of aggression has got to be met with strength. Speaker 0: Vladimir Putin decided, unprovoked, to start this war. So was it unprovoked? Speaker 1: Well, we did hear that a lot of times. That's what I said. I I actually asked a research assistant of mine to count how many times we heard that in the New York Times in that 1st year from February 2022 to February 2023. In their opinion, comps was 26 times unprovoked. Of course, things aren't unprovoked. It's almost a brand Speaker 0: name. Unprovoked invasion. Speaker 1: It's it's the lazy person's dodge for, actually trying to think through what's going on, and it's And it's very dangerous because it's wrong. It gets the whole story completely wrong, and it misunderstands the trap that we set for ourselves as the United States to push Ukraine deeper and deeper and deeper into this hopeless mess that they're in right now. Speaker 0: So in what sense was it provoked? Like, what started this? Speaker 1: Basically, it started very simply, which is, that the United States government, let's not call it the US people, they had nothing to do with this, but the US government, said, we're gonna put Ukraine on our side, and we're gonna go right up to that 2,100 kilometer border with Russia. We're gonna put our troops and NATO and maybe missiles, whatever we want because we are the sole superpower of the world, and we do what we want. And, it it goes back actually a long way. It goes back a 170 years. The Brits had this idea first. Surround Russia in the Black Sea region, and Russia's not a great power anymore. And that was, Lord Palmerston's idea in the Crimean War 1853 to 1856. And the Brits taught us what we know about empire, and they basically taught us the idea. You know, Russia, it needs an outlet. It needs an outlet to the Middle East. It needs an outlet to the Mediterranean. You surround Russia in the Black Sea. You have rendered Russia a second or third rate country and Zbig Brzezinski, one of our lead geo strategists of the current era, wrote in 1997, let's do this. Let's make sure that we basically surround Russia in in the Black Sea region. They got this idea that we'll expand NATO so that every country in the Black Sea around Russia is a NATO country. Right now, well, back then, Turkey was a NATO country but we said, okay, we'll get Romania and Bulgaria and we'll get Ukraine and we'll get Georgia. Now Georgia, not our Georgia, Atlanta Georgia, Georgia of the Black Sea. We used to call Speaker 0: it Soviet Georgia. Speaker 1: Yes. Soviet Georgia, if you want call it that. Home of Stalin. It's not NATO North Atlantic. It's way out there on the eastern edge of the Black Sea region. People can look at a map. But we said, yeah. We'll make Georgia part of NATO too. And the reason was very clear, and Zwig was very explicit about it that this is our way to basically dominate Eurasia. If we can dominate the Black Sea region, then Russia's nothing. If we make Russia nothing, then we can basically control Eurasia, meaning all the way from Europe to Central Asia, and through our influence in East Asia, do the same thing and that's American unipolarity. We run the world. We are the hegemon. We are the sole superpower. We are unchallenged. So that's the idea. Speaker 0: But why would you want that? Why would the Brits want that? Why does the US State Department want that? What about Russia, which is not actually much of an expansionist power, is so threatening? Speaker 1: It's it's, it's not about Russia. It's about the US. It's it's about Britain before that. I think it's a little bit like that old game of risk. I don't know if you played that as a kid, but you the idea was have your peace on every place in the world. You know? That that was the game. And you read the American strategist, whether it's Zbig Brzezinski, although he's a very moderate, or the neocons who have run US foreign policy for the last 30 years. US the the the neocons are very explicit. The US must be the unchallenged superpower in every place in the world. In every region, we must dominate. It's quite a it's quite a load for us American people. What they say is we are going to be the constabulary duty holder. What a fancy word for saying, we'll be the world's policeman. They they say it explicitly. They say that's lots of wars. We have to be ready for all these wars. To my mind, it's a little crazy but their idea was after the end of the Soviet Union, well, now we run the world. And to come back to Russia, the idea was, well, Russia's weak. It's down. It's we're the sole superpower. They're they're on on their back or on their knees, whatever it is, and now we can move NATO where we want, and we can surround them. And, the Russians said, please don't do that. Don't don't bring your troops, your weapons, your missiles right up to our border. It's not a good idea. And the US, I was around in those years involved in in Russia and in Central Europe. The US was, we don't hear you. We don't hear you. We do what we want. They kept pushing inside the US government in the 19 nineties when this debate was going, should NATO expand? Some people said, yeah. But, we told Gorbachev, and we told Yeltsin we weren't gonna expand at all. No. Come on. Soviet Union's done. We can do what we want. We're the sole superpower. Clinton bought into that. That was Madeleine Albright's line. NATO enlargement started, and our most sophisticated diplomats, we used to have diplomats at the time. We don't have them anymore, but we used used to have diplomats like George Kennan, said this is the greatest mistake we could possibly make. We had the defense secretary, Bill Perry, who was Clinton's defense secretary, who agonized, god. I should resign over this. This is terrible. What's going on? But he was outmaneuvered diplomatically by Richard Holbrook and by Madeleine Albright, and Clinton never thought through anything systematically, in my opinion. And so they decided, okay. Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, 1st round. And then Brzezinski, in the 1997 article in Foreign Affairs Magazine, which is kind of the bellwether of Yes. Foreign policy, wrote a strategy for Eurasia where he laid out exactly the timeline for this US expansion of power, and he said late 19 nineties will take in Central Europe, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic. By the early 2000, we'll take in the Baltic states. Now let's get close to Russia. By 2005 to 2010, we'll invite Ukraine to become part of NATO. So this wasn't some flippant thing. This was a long term plan and was based on a long term geo strategy. Now the Russians are saying, are you kidding? We wanted peace. We we ended the Cold War 2. You didn't just defeat us. We said, no more. We disbanded the Warsaw Pact. We wanted peace. We wanted cooperation. You call it victory. We we just wanted to cooperate. I know that for a fact because I was there in those years, what Gorbachev wanted, what Yeltsin wanted. They didn't want war with the United States nor were they saying we're defeated. They were saying we just wanna cooperate. We wanna stop the Cold War. We wanna become part of a world economy. We wanna be a normal economy. We wanna be a normal society connected with you, connected with Europe, connected with Asia. And the US said, we get it. We get it. We won. You do everything we say, and we determine how the pieces are gonna go. So in the early 2000, Putin comes in. First business for Putin was good cooperation with Europe. You go back to the early 2000s. Again, I know the people. I watch closely. I was a participant in some of it. Putin was completely pro Europe and pro US, by the way. And we don't wanna talk about this. We don't wanna admit it because we don't want anything other than unprovoked. So everything is phony, what we say. Everything is a lie. But just to say, the US kept doing unilateral things that were really outrageous. In 2,000 in 1999, we bombed Belgrade for 78 days. Bad move. Absolutely. We bombed a capital of Europe for 78 days. Speaker 0: What was looking back, what was the point of that? Speaker 1: The the point of that was to break Serbia into create a new state Kosovo where we have the largest NATO military base in Southeast Europe. We put bond steel base there because we wanted a base in Southeastern Europe, and again, you look at the neocons. It's nice of them. They actually describe all of this in various documents. You have to make the links, but in a document called rebuilding America's defenses in the year 2000, they say the Balkans is a new strategic area for the US. So we have to move large troops to the Balkans because their idea is literally the game of risk, not just you need good relations or peace. We need our pieces on the board. We need military bases with the advanced positioning of our military everywhere in the world. So they wanted a big base in, in Southeastern Europe. They didn't like Serbia. Serbia was close to Russia. Anyway, we're the sole superpower. We do what we want. So, they divided the country, which they now claim you never do and you never change borders. We broke apart Serbia, established by our declaration a new country, Kosovo. We put a huge NATO base there, and that was the goal. So that was 99. Speaker 0: It wasn't to save the oppressed Muslim population? Speaker 1: Excuse me? Speaker 0: It wasn't to save the oppressed Muslim population? Speaker 1: It was very much to save the military industrial complex to have a nice location in Southeastern Europe. It killed all those people, wrecked the city. It was a little bit sad, but we do lots of sad things and lots of destructive things, lots of wars. We're the country of perpetual war. We don't look back. We're not even supposed to talk about this because this was unprovoked, remember? So in 2002, the US unilaterally pulled out of the anti ballistic missile treaty, unilaterally. Well, that was one of the stabilizers of the relationship with Russia and it was one of the stabilizers of the the global nuclear situation, which is absolutely dangerous. And the US unilaterally started putting Aegis missiles into, first, Poland, then Romania. And the Russians are saying, wait a minute. What do we know you're putting in this? You're a few minutes from Moscow. This is completely destabilizing. Do you think you might wanna talk to us? So then comes 2004, 7 more countries in NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Now, starting filling in the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria. Suddenly, they're now North Atlantic countries but it's all part of this design, all spelled out, all quite explicit. We're surrounding Russia. In 2007, President Putin gave a very clear speech at the Munich Security Conference, very powerful, very correct, very frustrated where he said, gentlemen, you told us in 1990 NATO would never enlarge. That was the promise made to President Gorbachev, and it was the promise made to President Yeltsin, and you cheated, and you repeatedly cheated, and you don't even admit that you said this, but it's all plainly documented, by the way, and as you know, in a 1,000 archival sites, so it's easy to verify all of this. James Baker III, our secretary of state, said that NATO would not move 1 inch eastward, and it wasn't a flippant statement. It was a statement repeated and repeated and repeated. Hans Dietrich Genscher, the foreign minister of Germany, same story. The Germans wanted reunification. Gorbachev said, we'll support that, but we don't want that to come at our expense. No. No. It won't come at your expense. NATO won't move 1 inch eastward, mister president, repeated so many times in many documents, many statements by the NATO secretary general, by the US secretary of state, by, the German chancellor, now, of course, all denied by our foreign policy blob because we're not supposed to remember anything. Remember, this was all unprovoked. So back to 2007, Putin gives this speech and he says, stop. Don't even think about Ukraine. This is our 2,100 kilometer border. This is absolutely part of the integrated economy of this region. Don't even think about it. Now I know from insiders, from all the diplomatic work that I do, that Europe was saying to the US European leaders, don't think about Ukraine, please. This is not a good idea. Just stop. We know, from our current CIA director, Bill Burns, that he wrote a very eloquent, impassioned, articulate, clear, secret as usual memo, which we only got to see because WikiLeaks showed to the American people what maybe we would like to know once in a while, but Yeah. We're never told. Speaker 0: What our government's doing. Speaker 1: What they're doing and how they're putting us at nuclear risk and other things. Okay. This one did get out, and it's called niet means niet. No means no. And what what Bill Burns very perceptively, articulately conveys to Condoleezza Rice and back to the White House in, 2008 is Ukraine is really a red line. Don't do it. It's not just Putin. It's not just Putin's government. It's the entire political class of Russia. And just to help all of us as we think about it, it is exactly, as if Mexico said, we think it would be great to have Chinese military bases on the Rio Grande. We can't see why the US would have any problem with that. Of course, we would go completely insane. But And we should. And we should. Of course. It's the whole idea is so absurdly dangerous and reckless that you you can't even imagine grown ups doing this. So what happens is the what for what I'm told by European leaders, and by long detailed discussion, Bush junior says to them, no, no, no, no, it's okay. Don't worry. I hear you about Ukraine. And then he goes off for the Christmas holidays and comes back, whether it's Cheney, whether it's Bush, whatever it is, says, yeah, NATO's gonna enlarge to Ukraine. And the Europeans are shocked, pissed. What are you doing?

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/VVJnZeGuMR

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

They promised NATO would not expand to the East! At the🇩🇪reunification meeting (GDR and FRG) in 1990,🇩🇪Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher told his US counterpart, James Baker, that NATO would not expand to the East. Present also is E. Schevardnadze, Soviet Foreign Minister. https://t.co/pIvSMNMQfi

Video Transcript AI Summary
Der Westen verspricht, die NATO nicht weiter nach Osten auszudehnen, im Gegenzug zur deutschen Einheit. In Washington erklärt der damalige Außenminister, dass es keine Absicht gibt, das Radioverteidigungsgebiet nach Osten auszudehnen. Dies betrifft nicht nur die DDR, die nicht einverleibt werden soll, sondern gilt allgemein. --- In exchange for German reunification, the West promises not to expand NATO further east. In Washington, the then Secretary of State states that there is no intention to extend the radio defense area eastward. This applies not only to the GDR, which is not to be incorporated, but is a general principle.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Im Gegenzug zur deutschen Einheit verspricht der Westen, die NATO nicht weiter nach Osten vorrücken zu lassen. In Washington macht der damalige Außenminister weitreichende Zusagen. Speaker 1: Wir waren uns einig, dass nicht die Absicht besteht, das Radioverteidigungsgebiet auszudehnen nach Osten. Das gilt übrigens nicht nur in Bezug auf die DDR, die wir da nicht einverleiben wollen, sondern das gilt ganz generell.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/kPF0iHBmY2

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Brilliant!!! The best video @0rf ‼️👏👏👏 Watch Matt Orfalea Bitch Slap Those Who Said The Ukraine Invasion Was "Not About NATO" The biggest threat in the world is NATO. NATO exists to solve the problems created by NATO’s existence. NATO is a military alliance that feeds on war. To justify its existence, NATO constantly needs an external enemies and conflicts. NATO DISBAND!

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Putin sent a draft treaty to NATO, demanding no further enlargement as a precondition to avoid invading Ukraine, which NATO rejected. The conflict is not about NATO expansion; it revolves around democracy and Ukraine's internal policies, such as banning religious organizations and political parties. This war is fundamentally about Putin's desire to expand his influence and rebuild a Soviet-like empire. Comparisons are drawn between Putin and historical figures like Hitler, emphasizing that he poses a broader threat beyond Ukraine. The situation reflects a struggle against tyranny rather than a direct confrontation with NATO.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Putin actually sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And that was a precondition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. Speaker 1: So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO across his borders. Flashback. Speaker 0: This is fundamentally not about NATO expansion. Speaker 1: It's never about NATO enlargement. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO expanding toward Russia. Speaker 1: This was never about NATO? Speaker 2: It's absolutely nothing to do with NATO expansionism. And it has nothing to do with NATO. This is not about NATO. Speaker 1: It's not about NATO. It's not really about NATO. This is not about NATO. Speaker 2: Seriously, it's not about NATO. Speaker 1: This was never about NATO. Speaker 3: It was never about NATO. Let's be honest. This doesn't have anything to do with NATO? Speaker 1: Nothing to do with NATO at all. Speaker 2: Yeah. He's claiming it's, like, security purposes, but we can see the clear reason. But NATO is not the reason. Speaker 1: 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. Speaker 2: This war Speaker 1: in Ukraine is not about NATO. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It has nothing to do with NATO. Nothing to do with NATO expansion. Speaker 1: It's not about Speaker 3: NATO expansion. Speaker 1: Nothing to do with with NATO. Speaker 2: It isn't really about NATO. Speaker 1: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO enlargement. In fact, it has nothing to do with NATO. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO encroaching. Speaker 1: So it's not about NATO. NATO is just as a fictitious imaginary adversary for Speaker 2: for for mister Putin and for Russia. Speaker 1: It was never about NATO. Speaker 3: That's not what it's been about. It's been about him trying to expand his sphere of influence. Speaker 4: Hang on. I mean, the 2 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 2: He wanted us to sign Speaker 0: a promise never to enlarge NATO. We rejected that. Speaker 2: The reason why Putin invaded Ukraine is because of his evil Evil. It's about that Putin wants to rebuild Soviet empire of evil like president Reagan told. Speaker 1: It's about Putin being sick. Because I don't Speaker 2: know how you negotiate peace with a madman, but nobody negotiated with Hitler. Speaker 1: People were comparing him to Hitler. To Hitler. And remember Hitler? Speaker 2: He's a Hitler. Speaker 1: We're back when the the Nazis invaded Poland. Speaker 2: This is exactly the same what Hitler was doing to choose. This is the same. Putin will not stop. Speaker 4: Putin Speaker 1: Putin is reminiscent of Hitler. Hitler. Speaker 2: This reminds me of Hitler. Hitler. Hitler. Speaker 4: He's the new Hitler. Speaker 1: Who Hitler? 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. Alright. Straight ahead.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/f8yZsUdiuw

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

‼️ Ukraine War Was Provoked — Jeffrey Sachs Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi discusses the Ukraine conflict and the actions of the West, which provoked the war, with Jeffrey Sachs, President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. #GoingUnderground #JeffreySachs You know that the so called journalists, some would say stenographers, are repeating this word unprovoked when it comes to Russia moving to save the ethnic Russians in the east. What do you do? You just flinch every time you hear this phrase unprovoked, which is used by. I don't flinch. I laugh. And yes, I do cringe a little bit, because, first of all, this is a provoked war. Second, the word unprovoked is provoked in the sense that it is part of the talking points of all of these reporters. They wouldn't even come up with the same word, same exact word repeated endlessly were it not so phoney. So this is a war that had many provocations. It was a war that could easily have been avoided. When I say many provocations, it goes back to the US plan to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia, back to the 1990s. Does big Brzezinski, contrary to promises that were made at the end of what we thought was the end of the Cold War, I should say the unilateral US withdrawal from the ABM treaty in 2002, the 78 days of bombing of Belgrade by the United States and its allies in 1999 to break that country apart and install a NATO military base in Kosovo carved out from Serbia. The overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, where Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for european affairs at the time, was point person for this and absolutely in collaboration on regime change. The absolute failure of the US, Germany and France to abide by, defend and insist on the implementation of the Minsk, two agreements provoked. Of course it was provoked. Wars don't come out of nowhere. And anyone watching the history of this has seen these provocations all along. And a point that I keep making is that at the end of 2021, this was already nine years into conflict, which started with the overthrow of Yanukovych by the United States and right wing forces in Ukraine. Nine years later, the big war could have been avoided and the fighting could have stopped when Russia put on the table a revised U. S. Russia security arrangement based on Ukraine's neutrality, on the non enlargement of NATO. And I told the White House, then take it. Negotiate. Of course, there, you phoned them up. But negotiate? I mean, did you speak to the State Department? I spoke to the White House and I said, don't have a war over this. This is obviously avoidable.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The term "unprovoked" used by journalists regarding Russia's actions is misleading. This war has numerous provocations, stemming from U.S. actions like NATO expansion plans since the 1990s, the 2002 withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and the 1999 bombing of Belgrade. The overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, supported by U.S. officials, and the failure to uphold the Minsk II agreements also contributed to the conflict. By the end of 2021, after nine years of tension, a major war could have been avoided if the U.S. had engaged in negotiations over Russia's proposal for Ukraine's neutrality and NATO non-expansion. I urged the White House to pursue diplomacy to prevent war.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know that the so called journalists, some would say stenographers, are repeating this word unprovoked when it comes to Russia moving to save the ethnic Russians in the East. Do you just flinch every time you hear this phrase, unprovoked, which is used by Speaker 1: I don't flinch. I laugh, and I guess I do cringe a little bit because, first of all, this is a provoked war. 2nd, the word unprovoked is provoked, in the sense, that it is part of the talking points of all of these reporters. They wouldn't even come up with the same word, same exact word repeated endlessly were it not so phony. So this is a war that had many provocations. It was a war that could easily have been avoided. When I say many provocations, it goes back to the US plan to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia back to the 19 nineties does Big Brozinski contrary to promises that were made at the end of what we thought was the end of the Cold War, I should say. The unilateral US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002, the 78 days of bombing of Belgrade by the United States and its allies, in 1999 to break that country apart and install a NATO military base in Kosovo carved out from Serbia. The overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, where, Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs at the time was point person for this, and absolutely in collaboration on regime change. The absolute failure of the US, Germany, and France to abide by, defend, and insist on the implementation of the Minsk II agreements. Provoked, of course, it was provoked. Wars don't come out of nowhere, and anyone watching the history of this has seen these provocations all along and the point that I keep making is that at the end of 2021, this was already 9 years into conflict, which started with the overthrow of Yanukovych by the United States and right wing forces in Ukraine. 9 years later, the big war could have been avoided and the fighting could have stopped when Russia put on the table a revised US Russia security arrangement based on Ukraine's neutrality on the non enlargement of NATO. And I told the White House then, take it. Negotiate. Of course, there are Speaker 0: You phoned them up. Speaker 1: Agree, but negotiate. Speaker 0: I mean, did you speak to the state department? Speaker 1: I spoke to the White House, and, I said don't have a war over this. This is obviously avoidable.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/AUs2RaLUWY

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

'Putin didn't want the war' John Mearsheimer on Ukraine War in Ukraine is the Fault of US, British and NATO Expansion. We Believed That We Could Win The War.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Putin initially sought to avoid war and aimed for a diplomatic solution before February 24, 2022. After the conflict began, he engaged in negotiations with Ukraine, focusing on NATO expansion and seeking a neutral Ukraine, without intentions to annex further territory aside from Crimea. However, the U.S. and U.K. influenced Zelensky to abandon negotiations, believing Ukraine and the West could win the war. Initially, this seemed plausible in 2022, but by 2023, the situation has shifted, indicating a challenging year for Ukraine and a potential advantage for Russia in the conflict.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Putin did not want this war. He went to great lengths before February 24th, 2022, when the war started to, head it off at the past. He wanted to come up with a diplomatic solution. And then shortly after the war broke out in February, he was negotiating with the Ukrainians, to work out a deal. And at that point in time he was not talking about incorporating any Ukrainian territory, safe for Crimea, which had already been annexed into Russia. And all he really cared about, it's quite clear from all the reports of the people who were involved in the discussions was NATO expansion into Ukraine. He wanted a neutral Ukraine and if he had gotten a neutral Ukraine, this is right after the war started, I believe there's a good chance the war could have been shut down. But it was the Americans and the British who moved in and basically told Zelensky that he had to walk away from the negotiations because we believed that we could win the war. We meaning Ukraine plus the West. And in 2022, it actually looked like that might be the case. But now it's quite clear that 2023 has been a disastrous year for the Ukrainians and if anything, the Russians will win the war.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/3Hun2JY8qL

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

EXACTLY 100% UK politician Farage says Russia's invasion of Ukraine was provoked by EU and NATO expansion Reform UK party leader Nigel Farage said on Friday that he believed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was "provoked" by the eastward expansions of the European Union and NATO.

Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2014, I predicted a war in Ukraine due to NATO and EU expansion, which I believed provoked Russia. I've been warning about this since the 1990s, and I was criticized for it. Recently, George Robertson, a former NATO secretary general, echoed this sentiment, stating that EU expansion directly contributed to the conflict. Regarding Brexit, two main expectations were controlling our borders and reducing immigration, yet numbers have surged due to a conservative government prioritizing cheap labor. Additionally, Rishi Sunak's promise to eliminate 4,000 EU laws was abandoned, hindering regulatory simplification.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I stood up in the European Parliament in 2014, and I said, and I quote, there will be a war in Ukraine. Why did I say that? It was obvious to me that the ever eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union was giving this man a reason to his Russian people to say they're coming for us again and to go to war. But you were echoing him. I was sorry. You were echoing him. That's what Putin said. No. No. No. No. Sorry. I've been saying this actually since, actually, since 19 nineties. Ever since ever since Yeah. So he war. But hang on a second. We provoke this war. It's you know, of course, it's his fault. He's used what the government used to the invasion of Ukraine. And very interestingly, once again, 10 years ago when I predicted this by the way, I'm the only person in British politics that predicted what would happen. And, of course, everyone said I was a pariah for daring to suggest it. George Robertson, former labor cabinet minister, who went on to become the secretary general of NATO, has in the last couple of weeks said the war is a direct result of EU expansion But I'm asking you about because in your judgment, you wanna be prime minister. So let me ask you about someone else's view. My judgment has been way ahead of everybody else's in understanding this. My point is this. There were two realistic expectations from Brexit. One, we control our borders and reduce the numbers coming in. They've exploded. They've trebled to to numbers you can't even believe. And secondly and that's because of a conservative government that didn't even try because their big backers want cheap foreign labor. With the economy for the moment. And yeah. And secondly, it was a realistic expectation. Indeed, when Rishi Sunak was became prime minister, he was gonna scrap 4,000 EU laws. He then binned that policy. So we've not seen the simplification of regulation. Yeah.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/sqevUOVKX4

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

US Presidential Candidate @RobertKennedyJr Robert F. Kennedy Jr: We had the opportunity twice to settle this war on terms that were very, very good for the american people. Putin really wanted was us to keep NATO pledged and not put NATO into Ukraine, which is a legitimate demand by him. President Biden sent Boris Johnson over there to force Zelensky to tear up the treaty. 📑We had the opportunity twice to settle this war on terms that were very, very good for the american people. In April of 2022, President Putin and President Zelensky signed an agreement that was refereed by Naftali Bennett, the prime minister of Israel and also the prime minister of Turkey. It was a great agreement. All Putin really wanted was us to keep NATO pledged and not put NATO into Ukraine, which is a legitimate demand by him. He was withdrawing his troops after initialling that treaty. And President Biden sent Boris Johnson over there to force Zelensky to tear up the treaty. Since then, 600,000 ukrainian kids have died for a reason they never, nobody should have died. And we're now on the brink of closer to nuclear exchange.

Video Transcript AI Summary
In April 2022, an agreement was signed between President Putin and President Zelensky, facilitated by the leaders of Israel and Turkey. This agreement was favorable for the American people, primarily addressing Putin's demand to keep NATO out of Ukraine. Following the signing, Putin began withdrawing troops. However, President Biden intervened, sending Boris Johnson to pressure Zelensky into abandoning the treaty. As a result, the conflict escalated, leading to the tragic loss of 600,000 Ukrainian children and bringing the world closer to nuclear confrontation.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We have the opportunity twice to settle this war in terms that were very, very good for the American people. In April of 2022, President Putin and President Zelensky signed an agreement that was refereed by Naftali Bennett, the prime minister of Israel and, and the prime also the prime minister of Turkey. It was a great agreement. All Putin really wanted was us to keep NATO pledged and not put NATO into Ukraine, which is a legitimate demand by him. The, he was withdrawing his troops after initialing that treaty and President Biden sent Boris Johnson over there to force Zelensky to tear up the treaty. Since then 600,000 Ukrainian kids have died for a reason they never nobody should have died. And we're now on the brink, closer to nuclear change

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/Jyvi3FlijI

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

U.S. uses NATO as 'war machine' to maintain global hegemony Pepe Escobar “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.” ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World

Video Transcript AI Summary
This conflict is primarily against Russia and aims to destabilize Europe. The neocons have sought to deindustrialize Europe and sever its economic ties with Russia, particularly targeting Germany, to make Europe subservient to their agenda. We are approaching a critical point where, if their efforts against Russia fail, they might resort to extreme measures, including limited nuclear options, similar to past interventions in Libya and Iraq. Historically, NATO has not succeeded in promoting peace or security, and past actions have led to significant destruction without achieving stability.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Against Russia, that's number 1. Number 2, it's a war against Europe because one of the objectives of the neocons who launched this war and who have been working to launch this war for at least 8 years is to deindustrialize Europe, cut off the economic ties between, especially Germany and the EU and Russia, and turn Europe as a whole into a vassal of the empire. We are reaching a very dangerous threshold, which is when they throw everything against Russia and it doesn't work, they will be sufficiently paranoid and crazy to try I would say this is the ultimate red line, a limited nuclear this is what they did to Libya. They destroyed a country because in their minds, they needed control over a very fertile and important part of Northern Africa. In Iraq in 2003, the Americans started and NATO continued. We all know what happened. There is not a single historical example of NATO promoting peace and security. History shows that to us.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/OM8d6m8bpR

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

David Sacks Brilliant Quotes The Ukraine - Russian War Was Provoked! Biden 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. 📑Good evening, America. I'm David Sacks, a legal immigrant who worked hard to achieve the American dream. (Thank you.) Now I'm concerned those same opportunities won't be there for future generations. As I look out at this convention, I see a party that is strong and unified behind President Donald J. Trump, and his pick for Vice President, Senator J.D. Vance. And what about the Democrats? They're in disarray after shielding President Biden from a vigorous primary and gaslighting the entire country about his fitness to serve. We still don't know which puppet Democrat Party bosses will install as their nominee, but we know what their agenda will be: four more years of chaos and failure, both at home and abroad. In my hometown of San Francisco, Democrat rule has turned the streets of our beautiful city into a cesspool of crime, homeless encampments, and open drug use. Democrats — led by Border Czar Kamala Harris — have allowed millions of illegal migrants to invade our country. They tasked Homeland Security not with stopping the illegal aliens, but with busing them all over our country. Democrats have recklessly spent trillions of dollars on 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 III. In the Middle East, America is now losing a war with the Houthis. And the administration's policy towards Gaza has been so incoherent that the only thing that pro-Israel and pro-Palestine protesters agree on is the chant “eff Joe Biden.” Rather than bolstering confidence in American leadership, as he promised, President Biden has become the symbol of an America in decline. This may be our present, but it does not have to be our future. We can replace the Biden-Harris cabal with a president who is strong and smart rather than sleepy and senile, or in her case, clueless and embarrassing. A president who understands that you build the most powerful military in the world to keep America safe, not to play the world's policeman. A president who is willing to talk to adversaries, as well as friends, because that is the only way to make peace. A president who will stand up to the warmongers, instead of empowering them. My fellow Americans, we need a leader who commands respect and demands reciprocity from other nations. We need strength and savviness in the White House Situation Room — even if the crisis hits after Biden's bedtime. We need a president who can be president and lead, not a puppet controlled by his or her staff. We need order in our cities, order at our border, and order restored to a world on fire. My friends, we need President Donald J. Trump back in the White House. Thank you.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Good evening, America. I'm David Sachs, a legal immigrant concerned about the future of our opportunities. I see a strong Republican party united behind President Trump and Senator JD Vance, while the Democrats are in chaos, failing to address President Biden's fitness for office. Under Democrat rule, cities like San Francisco suffer from crime and homelessness, and the Biden administration has mishandled immigration and economic policies, leading to inflation and international instability. Biden's foreign policy has been disastrous, from the Afghanistan withdrawal to escalating tensions in Ukraine and the Middle East. We need a strong leader who prioritizes American safety, engages with adversaries, and restores order at home and abroad. It's time to bring President Trump back to the White House. Thank you.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good evening, America. I'm David good evening, America. I'm David Sachs, a legal immigrant who worked hard to achieve the American dream. Now Thank you. Now, I'm concerned those same opportunities won't be there for future generations. As I look out at this convention, I see a party that is strong and unified behind president Donald j Trump and his pick for vice president, senator JD Vance. And what about the Democrats? They're in disarray after shielding president Biden from a vigorous primary and gaslighting the entire country about his fitness to serve. We still don't know which puppet Democrat party bosses will install as their nominee, but we know what their agenda will be. Four more years of chaos and failure, both at home and abroad. In my hometown of San Francisco, Democrat rule has turned the streets of our beautiful city into a cesspool of crime, homeless encampments, and open drug use. Democrats, led by border czar, Kamala Harris, have allowed millions of illegal migrants to invade our country. They tasked Homeland Security not with stopping the illegal aliens, but with busing them all over our country. Democrats have recklessly spent 1,000,000,000,000 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 2 months after it broke out. Now the war is deep into its 3rd year with no end in sight. 100 of thousands of people are dead. 100 of 1,000,000,000 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 3. In the Middle East, America is now losing a war with the Houthis, And the administration's policy towards Gaza has been so incoherent that the only thing that pro Israel and pro Palestine protesters agree on is the chant f Joe Biden. Rather than bolstering confidence in American leadership as he promised, president Biden has become the symbol of an America in decline. This may be our present, but it does not have to be our future. We can replace the Biden Harris cabal with a president who is strong and smart rather than sleepy and senile. Or in her case, clueless and embarrassing, A president who understands that you build the most powerful military in the world to keep America safe, not to play the world's policeman. A president who is willing to talk to adversaries as well as friends because that is the only way to make peace. A president who will stand up to the warmongers instead of empowering them. My fellow Americans, we need a leader who commands respect and demands reciprocity from other nations. We need strength and savviness in the White House situation room even if the crisis hits after Biden's bedtime. We need a president who can be president and lead, not a puppet controlled by his or her staff. We need order in our cities, order at our border, and order restored to a world on fire. My friends, we need president Donald J. Trump back in the White House. Thank you.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/lwApyCBuww

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Col Doug Macgregor: We Cultivated This Conflict, We Encouraged It The Russians Have Tried Everything They Possibly Could To Avoid A Confrontation With The West 📑And that's the problem we have in the west. The lie is this was an unprovoked invasion. That's absolutely false. You've had on Professor Mearsheimer and others that have talked at length about this. We cultivated this conflict, we encouraged it, and then ultimately we unleashed it. It was not the Russians who sought this confrontation with us at all. In fact, from the very beginning, the Russians have tried everything they possibly could to avoid a confrontation with the west. Putin has recently said that provided these f 16s go into Ukraine and fly from ukrainian bases, he absolutely under no circumstances will permit the attack of any basis inside the NATO alliance. He doesn't want a confrontation. We're the ones provoking it. But this man's position that he outlined is not sustainable. It cannot go on much longer.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The narrative in the West claims that the invasion was unprovoked, which is false. This conflict was cultivated and encouraged by us, not initiated by Russia. From the start, Russia has sought to avoid confrontation. Putin has stated that if F-16s are deployed from Ukrainian bases, he will not allow attacks on NATO bases, indicating he does not desire conflict. The current stance outlined is not sustainable and cannot continue for much longer.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That's the problem we have in the West. The lie is this was an unprovoked invasion. That's absolutely false. You've had on Professor Mearsheimer and others that have talked at length about this. We cultivated this conflict. We encouraged it and then ultimately we unleashed it. It was not the Russians who sought this confrontation with us at all. In fact, for the very beginning, the Russians have tried everything they possibly could to avoid a confrontation with the West. Putin has recently said that provided, these f sixteens go into Ukraine and fly from Ukrainian bases, he absolutely under no circumstances will permit the attack of any bases inside the NATO alliance. He doesn't want a confrontation, we're the ones provoking it. But this man's position that he outlined is not sustainable, it cannot go on much longer.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/c6HRZqy1Pt

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Former US presidential candidate Stein: We had a proxy war in Ukraine that could have been avoided if we had simply respected the promise we made to Gorbachev when Germany reunited, and we said we would not move one mile to the east. And everyone knew that if we moved east, we would be attacking the Russian border. And it should be noted that what Russia is doing on the border is what we did when Russia brought its weapons to Cuba. Fortunately, our leaders talked. That is not happening now. They seem obsessed with using competition, using weapons, to show that “I am stronger than you.” And now we are climbing the ladder of escalation in both Ukraine and Israel.

Video Transcript AI Summary
In Ukraine, we are engaged in a proxy war that could have been avoided if we had honored the promise made to Gorbachev regarding NATO expansion. Moving eastward would infringe on Russia's borders, similar to their missile placement in Cuba. In the past, leaders communicated effectively to prevent escalation, but that seems lacking now. Instead, there is a focus on competition and military might, leading to increased tensions in both Ukraine and Israel.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In Ukraine, where we are fighting a proxy war, which could have been avoided had we simply respected the promise that was made to Gorbachev at the time that Germany reunited, and we said we are not moving 1 inch to the east. And it was well known that if we did move 1 inch to the east, we were going to be treading on Russia's border. And I just wanna make the point that what Russia is doing around this border is exactly what we did when, Russia moved its missiles into Cuba. Fortunately, our leaders had the good sense to talk with each other. They don't seem to do that now. They seem hell bent on using basically competition, weapons, and showing that I'm tougher than you are. And we're now moving up this escalation ladder right now in both Ukraine and, in Israel.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/hrL1PMlISP

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Brilliant!!! The best video @0rf ‼️👏👏👏 Watch Matt Orfalea Bitch Slap Those Who Said The Ukraine Invasion Was "Not About NATO" The biggest threat in the world is NATO. NATO exists to solve the problems created by NATO’s existence. NATO is a military alliance that feeds on war. To justify its existence, NATO constantly needs an external enemies and conflicts. NATO DISBAND!

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Putin sent a draft treaty to NATO, demanding no further enlargement as a precondition to avoid invading Ukraine, which NATO rejected. The conflict is not about NATO expansion; it centers on democracy in Ukraine, where political parties are banned, and elections are not held. Putin's actions are driven by a desire to expand his influence, reminiscent of historical aggressors like Hitler. The war is framed as a struggle against tyranny, with comparisons drawn to past conflicts. Ultimately, the narrative emphasizes that NATO is not the real issue; rather, it is about resisting authoritarianism and protecting democratic values.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Putin actually sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And that was a precondition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. Speaker 1: So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO across his borders. Flashback. Speaker 0: This is fundamentally not about NATO expansion. Speaker 1: It's never about NATO enlargement. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO expanding toward Russia. Speaker 1: This was never about NATO? Speaker 2: It's absolutely nothing to do with NATO expansionism. And it has nothing to do with NATO. This is not about NATO. Speaker 1: It's not about NATO. It's not really about NATO. This is not about NATO. Speaker 2: Seriously, it's not about NATO. Speaker 1: This was never about NATO. Speaker 3: It was never about NATO. Let's be honest. This doesn't have anything to do with NATO? Speaker 1: Nothing to do with NATO at all. Speaker 2: Yeah. He's claiming it's, like, security purposes, but we can see the clear reason. But NATO is not the reason. Speaker 1: 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. Speaker 2: This war Speaker 1: in Ukraine is not about NATO. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It has nothing to do with NATO. Nothing to do with NATO expansion. Speaker 1: It's not about Speaker 3: NATO expansion. Speaker 1: Nothing to do with with NATO. Speaker 2: It isn't really about NATO. Speaker 1: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO enlargement. In fact, it has nothing to do with NATO. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO encroaching. Speaker 1: So it's not about NATO. NATO is just as a fictitious imaginary adversary for Speaker 2: for for mister Putin and for Russia. Speaker 1: It was never about NATO. Speaker 3: That's not what it's been about. It's been about him trying to expand his sphere of influence. Speaker 4: Hang on. I mean, the 2 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 2: He wanted us to sign Speaker 0: a promise never to enlarge NATO. We rejected that. Speaker 2: The reason why Putin invaded Ukraine is because of his evil Evil. It's about that Putin wants to rebuild Soviet empire of evil like president Reagan told. Speaker 1: It's about Putin being sick. Because I don't Speaker 2: know how you negotiate peace with a madman, but nobody negotiated with Hitler. Speaker 1: People were comparing him to Hitler. To Hitler. And remember Hitler? Speaker 2: He's a Hitler. Speaker 1: We're back when the the Nazis invaded Poland. Speaker 2: This is exactly the same what Hitler was doing to choose. This is the same. Putin will not stop. Speaker 4: Putin Speaker 1: Putin is reminiscent of Hitler. Hitler. Speaker 2: This reminds me of Hitler. Hitler. Hitler. Speaker 4: He's the new Hitler. Speaker 1: Who Hitler? 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. Alright. Straight ahead.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/g6rSuqrvcj

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The war has always been between the US and Russia In 2016, Victoria Nuland told Congress that US advisors serve in 12 Ukrainian ministries, US-trained police operate in 18 Ukrainian cities, the US Treasury helped close 60 Ukrainian banks, and the US spent $266 million on training Ukrainian soldiers.

Video Transcript AI Summary
US advisers are actively supporting nearly a dozen Ukrainian ministries, focusing on service delivery, fraud reduction, tax collection, and institutional modernization. Newly trained police officers are now patrolling 18 cities. Free legal aid attorneys, funded by the US, have achieved two-thirds of all acquittals in Ukraine's courts. US Treasury and State Department advisers have assisted in closing over 60 failed banks, safeguarding depositor assets. Recognizing the link between reform and security, the US has invested over $266 million in the security sector, training 1,200 soldiers and 750 National Guard personnel, and providing essential gear. In FY16, this support will continue with further training and equipment for Ukraine's border guards, military, and coast guard.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And US advisers serve in almost a dozen Ukrainian ministries and localities, helping to deliver services, eliminate fraud and abuse, improve tax collection, and modernize Ukrainian institutions. With US help, newly vetted and trained police officers are patrolling the cities, the streets of 18 Ukrainian cities. In courtrooms across Ukraine, free legal aid attorneys funded by the US have won 2 thirds of all the acquittals in the countries. Treasury and state department advisers have helped Ukraine shutter over 60 failed banks and protected the assets of depositors. And since there can be no reform in Ukraine without security, over $266,000,000 of our support has been in the security sector, training 1200 soldiers and 750 Ukrainian National Guard personnel and supplying lifesaving gear. In FY16, we are continuing that training and equipment of more of Ukraine's border guards, military, and coast guard.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/jr1YYsZX1u

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

This guy knew. NATO expansion! https://t.co/hbdSij54Mz

WarClandestine
Posted - September 13, 2024 at 6:44 PM
Saved - September 13, 2024 at 7:36 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe Ukraine operates as a CIA base, having been influenced since the Soviet Union's fall. The CIA's involvement began with the Nunn-Lugar Act in 1991, leading to the establishment of US-funded operations under the guise of foreign aid. The 2014 civil war was fueled by US support for certain groups, allowing the State Department to install pro-US leaders. Putin's response stems from a desire to prevent NATO's encroachment on Russia's borders. The narrative of an unprovoked Russian attack obscures the US's role in escalating the conflict, which I see as a continuation of Cold War dynamics.

@WarClandestine - Clandestine

I do. Ukraine is essentially a giant CIA base, posing as a sovereign nation. The CIA moved into Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union, looking to take advantage of the lawless and destabilized country, using it as an offshore proxy, outside the scope of US oversight. It began with the Nunn-Lugar Act in 1991, and then carried on into 2005, when then Senators Obama and Lugar visited Ukraine, to inspect the former Soviet bio, chemical, and nuclear facilities (pictured below), and then added Ukraine to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and began turning these former Soviet facilities into “defensive research facilities”, which opened the door for US contractors to establish their foothold in Ukraine, and set up their money laundering and racketeering operations, under the guise of “foreign aid”. Then the CIA funded Nazi militant groups in Ukraine which led to the outbreak of civil war in 2014 in the Donbas. Amidst the chaos, the US State Department, via Victoria Nuland, leveraged the situation to install US-loyal puppets, including the infamous leaked phone call between her and fellow State Department bureaucrat Geoffrey Pyatt, about ensuring “their guy” Yatsenuik, was installed as Prime Minister. The State Department, in tandem with the CIA, covertly took control of Ukraine via Color Revolution in 2014. Putin recognized this. He knew that the US had destabilized and taken control of Ukraine, and recognized that the US were building a proxy army on his border, by funding, training, and supplying Ukraine with weapons, and trying to bring them into NATO. This was a red line for Putin, as he has said for decades. Russia have been invaded from the West too many times before, and will not tolerate a hostile standing army and long-range missiles on their border. Just like the US didn’t like it when Russia tried to put nukes in Cuba in the 60’s, Russia doesn’t like the US trying to bring armies and weapons to Ukraine. Essentially, Ukraine is an unofficial US territory and NATO member, and the Deep State do not want to lose out on their cash cow and strategic asset that is Ukraine, hence why they continue to send hundreds of billions of our tax dollars to protect Ukraine’s border. They are using Ukraine as a laundry mat to funnel in hundreds of billions for the war machine, and also covering up their extreme criminality in Ukraine, including crimes against humanity for bioweapon development, human trafficking, drug trafficking, etc. All the things they can’t get away with stateside, they do in Ukraine. If the public knew the truth about the origins of US involvement in Ukraine, they would NEVER have supported sending a single penny to Ukraine. The narrative that Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022 “unprovoked”, is war propaganda to make it appear Ukraine are the righteous defenders in order to garner your support, when in reality, The US started this conflict, they are the ones who brought war to Putin’s doorstep, and the US are the ones perpetuating the war by continuing to fund and supply Ukraine. Putin does not want to conquer all of Europe, he just wants NATO off of his border, and justice for US development of weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine, namely, gene-specific biological weapons. The Cold War never truly ended.

@EricRWeinstein - Eric Weinstein

I don’t understand what we are doing in Ukraine. And I don’t think you do either.

Uncommonsince76
Posted - October 13, 2024 at 6:42 PM
Saved - October 15, 2024 at 8:30 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The posts outline a perspective that attributes the war in Ukraine to a supposed Jewish influence within the U.S. government and NATO. They argue that Jewish leaders orchestrated events leading to the conflict, including the 2014 overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych and the rise of Volodymyr Zelensky. The author claims that various Jewish individuals and organizations are profiting from the war and manipulating U.S. policy for their interests. The posts suggest a conspiracy involving media control and political maneuvering to sustain this influence.

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

The Jewish ✡️ manufactured war in Ukraine has been a total success for Jewish Interest. Let’s explain how. 🧵 1/16 https://t.co/IcCvTsn3Zd

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

We have white Ukrainians being slaughtered by White Russians, meanwhile we have a Jewish ✡️ business deal for the Jewish ✡️ bank of Blackrock to buy up Ukraine on the cheap in the aftermath. 🧵 2/16 https://t.co/3dJwQH3mZK

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

How did we get here? Well the Jewish leaders inside the US and NATO had to overthrow Victor yanukovych in 2014, to get someone in the Ukrainian presidency that would push the NATO boundary. This is why ✡️ Jewish woman Victoria Nuland (US State department official in 2014) was handing out cookies to dissidents in 2014… 🧵 3/16

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

Who was the secret of state during that time? A Jewish man ✡️ named John Kerry. 🧵 4/16 https://t.co/TxrqTASLUz

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

This is why a Jewish man ✡️ named George Soros helped fund Ukrainian dissidents in 2014. He works for global Jewish interest. 🧵 5/16 https://t.co/JJZp8QkUJt

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

This is also why the Jewish ✡️ controlled press wiped that interview from the internet, and makes sure you get a “fact check” article about it when you look it up. 🧵 6/16 https://t.co/V25qZrK6tG

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

This is why Jewish ✡️ actor turned politician Volodymyr Zelensky was put into power. This is also why he turned from his peace with Russia Platform he ran on, to his war to no end with Russia platform. 🧵7/16 https://t.co/8NEhz7rC64

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

This is why the captured Jewish ✡️ political right wing leaders supported the Ukraine war even in the face of opposition. ✡️- Mark Levin ✡️- Ben Shapiro 🧵 8/16 https://t.co/CMq3XhdkZ8

Video Transcript AI Summary
Many on the right oppose U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war, but the speaker believes it's a bargain for America. While the U.S. spends trillions on national defense, $20 billion sent to Ukraine has crippled the aggressive Russian military, which has been a challenge for multiple administrations. Putin miscalculated, thinking he could easily take Kyiv. Ukraine's success isn't just about numbers; NATO armaments and sophisticated microchip systems give them a technical advantage over Russia, which sometimes uses World War II-era ordnance. The speaker claims that Ukraine's superior technology has led to approximately 150,000 Russian soldier deaths. The Ukraine war has effectively neutralized Russia's fighting force as a global threat.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now I know that there are a lot of folks on the right who are not big fans of the Ukraine war. They think that the United States should not be involved in Ukraine at all. To me, this seems like a bargain. The truth is that just on a monetary level, the Ukraine war has been, in American foreign policy terms, a bargain. We spend literally over the course of decades, 1,000,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars on national defense. And that money is is sunk into weaponry that we don't end up using if we are successful in deterring everybody else from doing this sort of stuff. We have sent $20,000,000,000 to have a lot of money over to Ukraine, and we have crippled the Russian military. The Russian military is aggressive. It's been aggressive on its borders for 2 decades. Nobody's known how to handle Vladimir Putin. This has been true since the Bush administration, really since the end of the Clinton administration. There's been no idea really how to handle Russia. And Vladimir Putin made a mistake. He stepped into a hornet's nest. He stepped into Ukraine thinking that he was gonna be able to take Kyiv. And the original going wisdom you'll recall is that he was going to be able to take Ukraine, no problem, just ingest it. And as it turns out, it is not just a question of pure num numerical superiority when it comes to war anymore. Now it is a measure of technical sophistication. NATO armaments are way, way more sophisticated than whatever Russia has. Russia is using, like, World War 2 ordinance in some cases. Meanwhile, Ukraine is armed with all of the systems that NATO can provide it. Sophisticated microchip systems that Russia just does not have the availability of. And that means that in technical terms, Ukraine is far superior to the Russian military, which has been shown by the apparently 150,000 dead Russian soldiers over the course of last year. So the Ukraine war has effectively single handedly taken Russia's fighting force as a global threat off the table.

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

This is also why the Jewish ✡️ neocons who got us involved in the Iraq war, were 100% behind the Ukraine war. ✡️- Bill Kristol ✡️- Robert Kagan (Victoria Nulands husband) 🧵 9/16 https://t.co/eR79kXNn2Q

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

This is why our Jewish ✡️ treasury Secretary Janet Yellen continues to say we have plenty of money for Ukraine, even though we have record debt. 🧵 10/16 https://t.co/sHV9RCCjhX

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

This is why our Jewish ✡️ Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, continues to support the unpopular war in Ukraine. 🧵 11/16 https://t.co/yK2logViJM

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

This is why our blackmail controlled Congress by ✡️ Mossad agents like Jefferey Epstein tied both Ukraine funding and Israel funding together in a spending bill. Both wars in Jewish ✡️ interest but not American interest. 🧵 12/16 https://t.co/3LAN7OKIOt

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

This is also why American journalist Gonzalo Lira had to be killed. He was leaking damning info on the Bursima connections to the Bidens with ✡️ Israeli Jewish billionaire Kolomoyski. 🧵 13/16 https://t.co/mIic4oNV3i

Video Transcript AI Summary
Zelensky, the "coke head of Kyiv," is described as a manufactured political figure created by Ukrainian Israeli Cypriot oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, who owns 1+1 media. Kolomoisky's company financed and produced the TV show "Servant of the People," hiring Zelensky, an actor with no political experience, to play the president. The show was hugely popular and Kolomoisky created a political party with the same name, running Zelensky as their candidate. Kolomoisky financed Zelensky to the point that he is now a billionaire. Kolomoisky also financed Hunter Biden to the tune of $50,000 a month plus additional benefits. Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company, to be on its board of directors for $250,000 a month. Kolomoisky controls Burisma. Both Zelensky and Hunter Biden have drug addictions and are bankrolled by Kolomoisky. The speaker claims that the White House is "freaking out" over Ukraine because the "unsavoury people in the Washington establishment" have used Ukraine as their "private piggy bank," financially raping the country. Western politicians have exploited Ukraine, contributing to its poverty. The speaker suggests that the West is terrified that the truth will come out in Ukraine.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You see, Zelensky, the president of Ukraine well, the coke head of Kyiv, because he is a coke head. The coke head of Kyiv is actually a manufactured political figure. He was manufactured by Ukrainian Israeli Cypriot oligarch called Igor Kolomoisky. Now Igor Kolomoisky was the man who owns 1 +1media here in Ukraine. And 1 +1media is the company that financed and produced the TV show Servant of the People. And Servant of the People hired Zelensky, a well known actor in Ukraine, an actor with 0 political experience or even any political interest. Well, they hired him to play the role of the president in this show, Servant of the People. Now Servant of the People had huge ratings, but a lot of people say that it was really weird the amount of propaganda and PR that was done for the show. It was disproportionate to any other show of any channel. The amount of PR positive press and all the rest of it, it was really pushed on the people. Some people say it was completely astroturf. Some people who know, how to speak Ukrainian and who have watched the show have told me that it's a mildly enjoyable show, but no big deal. But anyway, the show was hugely popular. And it ran from 2015 to 2018 and almost seamlessly. Kolomoisky, the oligarch created a party called Servant of the People, same name as the TV show. And their candidate was Zelensky, a man with no previous political experience and indeed no previous political interest. And Kolomoisky financed Zelensky to the point that Zelensky today is a billionaire. How many actors do you know are billionaires? I mean, I don't think that Tom Cruise is a billionaire, and he's the most successful actor in the world if he's just an actor. Zelensky is more than just an actor. He's the finger puppet of Kolomoisky, this oligarch. And do you know who Kolomoisky also financed to the tune of $50,000 a month plus additional benefits of different sorts? Hunter Biden, yes. In 2014, Burisma, the Ukrainian oil company gas company, excuse me, hired Hunter Biden to be on its board of directors to the $250,000 a month. Who do you think controls Burisma? Kolomoisky, the same guy who manufactured Zelensky as president of Ukraine. Yeah, I bet you didn't know that. Zelensky and Hunter Biden are spiritual cousins. They are bankrolled by the same guy. It's funny because both of them have drug addictions. Pretty serious ones. Both of them get their money from Kolomoisky and both of them are intimately involved in Ukraine. But here's the difference, of course. Zelensky doesn't have a dad who's president of the United States now, does he? Why do you think the White House, the United States, is freaking out so badly over Ukraine? In Ukraine, there are all kinds of secrets. In Ukraine, well, see, the more unsavoury people in the Washington establishment have used Ukraine as their private piggy bank to the detriment of the Ukrainian people. They have financially raped Ukraine, stripping it of monies and assets monies and assets needed by the people of Ukraine. And this is part of the reason that Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Europe, if not the poorest country in Europe, because of the corruption, because of how westerners have exploited it, western politicians have exploited it. Hunter Biden, $50,000 a month and you say yourself, well, 50,000 isn't that much. Yeah, but $50,000 a year is the median household income in the United States. In Ukraine, a much poorer country, $50,000 a year would easily, solve the problems of a good 4 or 5 families in Ukraine, the financial problems of those 4 or 5 families in Ukraine for a year, and Hunter Biden was getting that money per month just for himself. Although, of course, in the Hunter Biden emails, there's talk that seems to be true that the old man would get a 10% kickback of whatever Hunter Biden was getting. That was in the, laptop. Oh, yeah. Look it up. You don't have to take my word for it. You don't have to take my word for any of what I'm telling you. Mhmm. Look it up yourself, and you'll find it. It's very easy to find. Kolomoisky, the Ukrainian Israeli Cypriot oligarch, was financing Zelensky, was financing Joe Biden. God else God alone knows who else he was financing, and he was just one. There's a whole rotten bunch of these people here in Ukraine, and they were all busy paying off the west so that they could carry on their little evil deeds and whatnot. If you want to know why the west is freaking out over Ukraine, you have to understand that they are all terrified that the truth will come out in Ukraine.

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

This is also why when Trump was sniffing around the Biden corruption scandal, a ✡️ Jewish man (Alexander Vindman) came forward and said he “abused his power.” They could not have Trump poking around, and reacted violently to it. 🧵 14/16 https://t.co/tGRWxRi2cT

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

So you see, it’s not so much that we have a “military industrial complex” it’s that we have a large international Jewish influence complex within our government subverting us into wars, and leading us further and further to George Soros goals of an “Open Society” as he put in his book. 🧵 15/16

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

If you appreciated this thread, consider donating to this page via buymeacoffee.com/Uncommonsince76 16/16 I appreciate your support!

its_The_Dr
Posted - January 1, 2025 at 1:21 AM
Saved - January 2, 2025 at 5:19 PM

@its_The_Dr - Johnny Midnight ⚡️

Western Ukraine backed the Nazis with the CIA. Putin warned for 15 years that he's not going to standby while globalists takeover the world and build bioweapon labs. Ukraine is the center of money laundering. The Deep State is real. Zelenskyy is a puppet. https://t.co/kILVqPy6Yb

Video Transcript AI Summary
Russia's strategy in Ukraine has been focused on bio weapons laboratories rather than an immediate assault on Kyiv. Historical context reveals a long-standing relationship between the U.S. and Ukrainian Nazi groups, with the CIA allegedly providing immunity to these individuals post-World War II. The narrative around Ukraine is often distorted, with figures like President Zelensky, who is Jewish, being portrayed in a selective manner. The conflict is not merely about Russia and Ukraine; it involves deeper issues of global power dynamics, corruption, and misinformation. The U.S. has a history of interference in Ukraine's politics, and the existence of a "deep state" complicates the truth behind these events. The media often fails to address these complexities, leading to widespread public misunderstanding.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What Russia has done from the very beginning has been very strategic. They didn't go straight to Kyiv. They went to all those, bio weapons laboratories that are scattered all over the country. Some of them they built. So they know where they are. They've know where they are since the Soviet Union. Because under the defense threat reduction program, we went in after the fall of the Soviet Union and supposedly turned those facilities in from bioweapons labs into public health labs. Although, you know, these days it's hard to believe anything that our leaders tell us because they 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. You see such dishonesty when it comes to the history of Ukraine. You see dishonesty when it comes to the Azov battalion, which is funded by the US and NATO. I mean, you can find pictures of them online holding up the NATO flag and the swastika at the same time. Their own emblem contains the black son of the occult, which was a Nazi SS emblem. And it also contains the sideways, you know, and lightning insignia of the SS. I mean, this is on throughout the Ukrainian military. You can see that black son of the occult on their, body armor. Even on the female soldiers who are paraded in front of the world is being, you know, female soldiers who are paraded in front of the world as being, you know, such an example of Ukraine's, independence and spirit and nobility, even they are wearing the black son of the occult. And, you know, we want the white house wants you to believe, well, this doesn't matter. It's just a small number of troops. It's not true. The ASOP battalion has been murdering its way through Eastern Ukraine. Yeah. We don't want to admit this. This was why Crimea voted for independence. This is why Crimea wanted to be with Russia. Because we have media in the Western media and in the West won't acknowledge the reality of what's going on. Western Ukraine backed the Nazis. It was a headquarters for the Nazi SS. The CIA and the Allan Gallus actually gave immunity for prosecution to the Nazis of Ukraine from the Nuremberg trials. So, there's a long history of the United States and our intelligence agencies funding and arming Nazis in Ukraine. These are not like Neo Nazi groups that sprung up. These are the actual Nazis from the 2nd World War, who if you go back to the Nuremberg trials, said that they were planning for a 1000 year riot. And so you have to really wonder as you look at this, when you know that the CIA sponsored the color revolution in Ukraine in 2013 and 2014, that they selected Ukraine's leaders go to the, go to Victoria Newland's leaked phone conversation where she and the US ambassador are deciding who can lead Ukraine. I mean, there's this as much interference here as you could possibly imagine. Before we even get to Hunter Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney, and all of their children who are employed, who earn 1,000,000 from Ukrainian Speaker 1: gas companies. Yeah. You're appointing, pardon me, to a real credibility crisis for our leaders. I wanna let Karen Turk jump in. Speaker 2: Yeah. I I wanted to bring up the fact that president Zelensky is Jewish, and I don't know exactly how this factors in, but there's some very interesting points in what you're saying. And looking at this, you know, you could think it's political theatrics. You, Speaker 0: you know, Speaker 2: made a very good point at the beginning that you think that Putin is in control. Speaker 0: What troubles me about the moment that we're in is that we have such a selective and a narrow reading of history. You know, president Zelensky may be Jewish, but he's not the only one in You know, president Zelensky may be Jewish, but he's not the only one in this who suffered during the second world war, whose ancestors suffered, right? I mean, look at Putin, how many relatives that he lose in the siege of St. Petersburg. People don't know their history. They don't know what made Vladimir Putin. And I'm not a defend, you know, I am not defending him. I don't need to defend Vladimir Putin. 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 told your only choices, you have to be a 100% with Zelensky, who's a puppet, who you can find on the internet in black stilettos and leather pants, you know, with shirtless doing a spoof dancing with the stars kind of entertainment video. That's a mock of a Ukrainian group that does this kind of satanic occult type of music video. And I mean Zelensky was selected like 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 for us and weren't actually voted in. But what we do know is that there are increasing problems with technology and the digitization of our world. Because look at what's happening with COVID. Look at what has happened globally. We are fighting the same battles all over the world to pretend that this war is about Russia and Ukraine is a just a barefaced lie. If Putin has been warning for 15 years that he is not going to stand by while the globalists take over the world, build bioweapons facilities and whatever else they are doing in Ukraine, Ukrainian oligarchs, Ukraine has been a center of money laundering for many of the leaders in this country for how long, 1,000,000,000 of US dollars have been laundered through Ukraine. And we say nothing about it. These are our tax dollars. I mean, before the impeachment trial, had you ever heard of anyone in the United States? I mean, us bringing in foreign governments to the White House for anti corruption training. I mean, does nobody question these things? Why do we not question them? We have an idiot like Lieutenant Colonel Vindman who goes at the impeachment trial 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. Don't listen to the election results. We are the true leaders of America. I mean, and then people object when the woman isn't even fired. She's given a cushy job for life at Georgetown University at the expense of the US taxpayer. And we're told that the president of the United States cannot say to his foreign counterparts, you know, that we want you to look into something. But Joe Biden Speaker 1: I got it. Speaker 0: Withhold as much aid as he wants to. I mean, there's so much hypocrisy and dishonesty here, and Ukraine is at the center of it all. Go back to Russia collusion. Go to Alexander Trilippa, go to Eric Caramella, the the whistleblower who went to work for Adam Schiff, who wasn't really a whistleblower, and all those corrupt people in the deep state. And you know what? The deep state isn't a theory. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's an actual deep state. Look up the SES, the Senior Executive Service. Because when that bureaucracy was ushered into law in the United States of America, that's when we got a bunch of unelected bureaucrats pulling the strings behind the scenes. And these are the people that keep lying to us. Speaker 1: Absolutely. And pardon me. We've got a a live chat where we're streaming on Gettr, for example, and I'm watching it as you're talking. People are talking about how you're dropping truth bombs, and you're a real journalist. And I know that having worked alongside you for many, many years when you're at CBS and many other places. And maybe they didn't wanna hear the truth, but you're dropping those truth bombs now. Unfortunately, we gotta hit a break right now. We'd love to have you back in the days ahead. We'd love having you on. Lara Logan, thanks for joining us on Real America's Voice. Speaker 0: Thank you so much.
laralogan
Posted - March 1, 2025 at 9:56 PM
Saved - March 2, 2025 at 12:02 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared some facts about Ukraine that challenge mainstream narratives. I believe Putin's invasion was influenced by the U.S. breaking agreements regarding NATO's eastern expansion and rebuffing Russia's attempts to join. The U.S. also moved missile defense systems close to Russia and ignored the desires of Russian-speaking people in Crimea. I pointed out the CIA's role in the 2014 color revolution and highlighted the historical presence of Nazi elements in Ukraine, including the Azov Battalion, raising questions about U.S. support for these groups.

@laralogan - Lara Logan

Here are facts about Ukraine that would be common knowledge if the media was honest & did its job: - Putin invaded largely because the U.S. broke its word/agreements on eastern expansion of NATO. - The US & Europe rebuffed Russia’s efforts to join NATO so he was never let into the club while - The US moved missile defence systems to the door of Russia, rubbing his face in it. - Then don’t forget the U.S. & Ukraine dismissed the will of the Russian-speaking people of Crimea to be part of Russia & covered up the mass murder of thousands across eastern Ukraine, to include Lugansk, Odessa & so on. - The CIA carried out a color revolution in 2014 to overthrow the Ukrainian govt & installed the leader THEY wanted - not the Ukrainian people. - Western Ukraine was the headquarters of the Nazi SS during WWII and those same Nazis are still active in the country today, as evidenced by the division of Nazis in the Ukrainian military known as the Azov Battalion. - The US & Europe have been arming, funding, training & equipping actual Nazis in Ukraine for years while screaming about Trump supporters being Nazis. - There is a long history behind this & one critical point concerns Alan Dulles, former head of the CIA who protected Ukraine’s Nazis from facing justice at the Nuremberg Trials - why? And why does no one ever ask that, to include all the Jewish organisations out there? No one is curious about the US protecting the Ukrainians in the Nazi SS?

WarClandestine
Posted - March 2, 2025 at 9:15 PM
Saved - March 3, 2025 at 11:37 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe that if you think Russia initiated the conflict in 2022, you might be misinformed. Understanding Victoria Nuland's role in Ukraine in 2014 is crucial. The Deep State, particularly the Obama administration, funded militant groups to instigate a civil war and orchestrated regime change. After the 2014 coup, the US effectively controlled Ukraine, using it for various covert operations. The buildup of Ukraine's military was aimed at confronting Russia, and the mainstream media has consistently misrepresented the truth about this situation.

@WarClandestine - Clandestine

If you still believe that Russia started this conflict in 2022, then you are either corrupt, ignorant, or brainwashed. If you don’t know who Victoria Nuland is, or what she was doing in Ukraine in 2014, then you have no idea what’s going on. The Deep State started this war. It was the Obama CIA/State Dept that funded Nazi militant groups to start a civil war in Ukraine, and initiated regime change to a CIA/State Dept puppet, Yatseniuk. This was all revealed in the leaked phone call between State Dept diplomats and Deep State agents, Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt (link in next post). After the Maidan coup in February 2014, the US CIA/State Dept owned Ukraine via proxy, and the CIA began using Ukraine as a giant offshore playground for criminal racketeering and money laundering. Ukraine became one giant CIA base, directly on Russia’s border. Then the US/NATO began building up Ukraine’s army for the sole purpose of one day fighting Russia. The US/NATO began supplying Ukraine with weapons, equipment, missiles, training, intelligence, etc. Covert elements within the US government, along with their European partners in NATO, used espionage to overthrow and take control of the nation of Ukraine, then built a massive standing army on Russia’s border, then tried to bring Ukraine into NATO, and thus start WW3. If you are still buying the official MSM narrative about this conflict, you should not be engaged in conversations. Everything the MSM told you about Ukraine/Russia has been a lie, and in many cases, the inverse of the truth.

@WarClandestine - Clandestine

Link to BBC article from 2014 admitting the massive scandal at the US State Dept engaging in regime change. The MSM always leave these details out of the current narrative. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26072281.amp

Ukraine crisis: Leaked phone call embarrasses US - BBC News An apparently bugged call between US diplomats reveals a frank exchange on the strategy for Ukraine and disparaging comments about the EU. bbc.com
WarClandestine
Posted - March 5, 2025 at 5:19 PM
Saved - March 7, 2025 at 3:19 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m surprised by how many people are unaware that the CIA has been openly sharing intelligence with Ukraine. Many don’t realize that Ukraine acts as a proxy for the US, utilizing our resources while being primarily a US/NATO-built military force. The Ukrainian army is essentially a tool for indirect conflict against Russia, viewed as expendable by its backers. This dynamic escalated in 2014 when the US influenced regime change in Ukraine, prompting Putin's response. In 2016, US politicians assured Ukrainian soldiers of full support to combat Russia, highlighting the US's role in initiating this conflict.

@WarClandestine - Clandestine

I’m surprised how many people were completely unaware that the CIA were openly sharing intelligence with Ukraine. Most of the country have no idea that Ukraine is a proxy of the US. They use our money, weapons, equipment, training, intelligence, etc. The only thing that makes the Ukrainian army Ukrainian, is that they are using Ukrainian bodies instead of American ones. Thats it. Everything else in the Ukrainian military is a US/NATO product. Ukraine’s military is an army that the US/NATO built for fighting Russia indirectly. They are a pawn on a chess board, and the US/NATO view them as dispensable. That’s why Putin escalated in 2014 when the US conducted regime change in Ukraine. He knew what the US were up to. He knew the US were planning to build an army on his border. An army designed to fight Russia. He was right. Flashback to 2016, when corrupt US politicians, Graham, Klobuchar, and McCain, were in Ukraine telling the Ukrainian soldiers that the US will provide them with everything they need to go on the offensive and fight Russia. Most people around the world have no idea that the US started this war.

Video Transcript AI Summary
We're committed to fighting for your homeland alongside you. 2017 will be the year of offense, and we will push the case against Russian aggression in Washington. It's time for Russia to pay a heavier price, but our fight is with Putin, not the Russian people. We promise to take your concerns to Washington, inform Americans of your bravery, and make the case against Putin to the world. I believe in your victory and we will provide you with the resources needed to win. Your courage, not just equipment, has brought success. The world is watching because we cannot allow Putin to succeed here, or he will threaten other countries as well.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I admire the fact that you will fight for your homeland. Your fight is our fight. Twenty seventeen will be the year of offense. All of us will go back to Washington, and we will push the case against Russia. Enough of a Russian aggression. It is time for them to pay a heavier price. Our fight is not with the Russian people but with Putin. Our promise to you is to take your calls to Washington. Inform the American people of your bravery. And make the case against Putin to the world. Speaker 1: I believe you will win. I am convinced you will win, and we will do everything we can to provide you with what you need to win. And we have succeeded not because of equipment, but because of your courage. So I thank you, and the world is watching. And the world is watching because we cannot allow Vladimir Putin to succeed here. Because if he succeeds here, he will succeed in other countries. Thank you.
MJTruthUltra
Posted - March 11, 2025 at 2:22 AM
Saved - March 11, 2025 at 12:08 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I explored the reasons behind Russia's invasion of Ukraine, emphasizing that Russia aimed to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO due to its strategic importance and energy pipelines. I noted that Kamala Harris's support for Ukraine's NATO membership prompted Putin's decision to invade. I argued that the U.S. had previously undermined Ukraine's sovereignty by installing a pro-Western government and abandoning the Minsk Agreement. Additionally, I highlighted how U.S. influence led to the destruction of Ukraine, resulting in significant loss of life and the exploitation of its land by multinational corporations.

@MJTruthUltra - MJTruthUltra

Want to understand why Russia Invaded Ukraine? Tucker delivered a Masterclass breakdown • Russia invaded Ukraine for one reason despite all the lying —— They didn’t want Ukraine to become part of NATO. It’s too big, it’s too important, and Russia’s energy Pipelines runs through it. • So what did the United States do next? —— Kamala Harris went to the Munich conference in Feb 2022 and said to Zelensky, “we want you in NATO.” —— Putin gave a speech shortly after saying they have no choice now but to invade Ukraine. • Russia wanted to control, to some extent, who becomes their neighbor, in the same way America would want to protect who our neighbors are. —— We don’t want enemies surrounding the US. —— Russia didn’t want an enemy on their border. • The argument that NATO protects the sovereignty of nations is BS, because the United States Overthrew the Democratically Elected Ukraine Government in 2014 and installed a hand-picked pro-western government, effectively making Ukraine a satellite nation of the United States. —— the US was caught installing an entire new Government in Ukraine. —— how would the US feel if Russia installed the government in Mexico or Canada along our borders? • In 2019, the United States walked away from a Peace treaty known as the Minsk Agreement that was negotiated between Russia and Ukraine by European nations. • In April 2022, Ukraine and Russia came to terms in a peace deal. —— America wanted a war, and President Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to force President Zelenskyy to tear up the peace agreement that was already signed by everyone. —— at that time, Russia was withdrawing troops from various regions. • Then Zelensky changes their laws to allow foreigners buy land, and now big multi-national can go in there and buy up Ukraine We witnessed the total destruction of a European nation… and millions of young people died, for nothing. Clip https://rumble.com/v6qgese-tucker-delivered-a-masterclass-breakdown-about-why-russia-invaded.html Tuckers Full Show https://t.co/qyzyTtmZoz

Video Transcript AI Summary
Russia is consistently portrayed as acting against American interests, particularly with its alliance with China and its invasion of Ukraine. This action, while wrong, was driven by Russia's concern over Ukraine potentially joining NATO and becoming a satellite of the United States with American weapons. The speaker argues that Ukraine's government isn't fully sovereign, alleging it was installed by a CIA coup. They highlight that during peace talks in Istanbul, a potential agreement was disrupted by the US, leading to further devastation and loss of life in Ukraine. The speaker questions why the U.S. is at war with Russia.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Like Speaker 1: Russia bad means they are consistently invested in what's bad for America. Putin is a They Speaker 0: certainly are now. I mean, they're alive with China. So, yeah, that was not true at the beginning of 2022. And so I was Speaker 1: just Invading Ukraine was wrong, what they did, and Ukraine did not start that war. Speaker 0: The whole thing was wrong. No. Russia invaded Ukraine Yes. For one specific reason despite all the lying from Anne Applebaum and the Atlantic Council and the professional liars and morons in Washington who got us into the Iraq war and Libya and Syria and every other disaster. I've never apologized for and penalized for it. The truth is that Russia's concern was that Ukraine remain not part of NATO. They wanna control Ukraine to some extent. It's their neighbor in the same way that we wanna control, I don't know, Canada or Mexico. You don't have to, you know, run the municipal elections in the country, but you don't want like, if you had a government in Canada that was, like, bent on destroying The United States, you would overthrow the premier of Canada because you can't have that. It's your neighbor. You're a great power. And that's how Russia sees itself. Now you could say, well, that's against international law or whatever, but that's the way nations behave, and great nations have an expectation they're not gonna have an enemy on their border if they can help it. Speaker 1: But NATO isn't inherently an enemy. Is to it is to protect against the illegal and wrongful annexation of sovereigns. Speaker 0: Okay. It's okay. Ukraine is not sovereign, and Ukraine's government was installed in a coup by the CIA in 02/2014. So it's not a sovereign nation. Speaker 1: Well, they You have of the States. Regime. Speaker 0: We installed their government. Speaker 1: They're not sovereign. You Like, what? Ukraine is a sovereign, as you know. Speaker 0: But In what way? Speaker 1: Russia had put a puppet in. There was a democratic revolution there that Zelenskyy wound up winning that election, second round of voting, that was to remove the Russian puppet who went back with a lot of money into Russia. Speaker 0: No. You're you're, yeah, whatever. I mean, you're skipping over. That's actually not at all what happened. Zelenskyy did not become president in 02/2014, which was when No. Speaker 1: But I'm saying that's Maidan Square was a reaction to a Russian puppet regime in that country. Well, called a Russian puppet regime. Where did the guy go back to? Speaker 0: Well, he fled to Russia Yeah. On the verge of getting killed. But the bottom line is Russia wanted a friendly government in Ukraine. Okay? I get it. The United States, which is nowhere near Russia or Ukraine, went across the Atlantic Ocean to install its president in Ukraine in a coup. That's a fact, and they were caught on tape doing it. And Bob Kagan's wife was was caught doing that. You can listen to the tape. And so, okay, I guess both are bad. But if you're being an adult about it, you understand that great powers have an interest in not having other people's nuclear weapons on their borders. That's just a fact. And you could say, well, it shouldn't be a fact, but it is a fact. Speaker 1: So we don't have nuclear weapons in you on you on the border. The only nuclear weapon Well The only work Really? Speaker 0: So NATO doesn't have nuke look. In Ukraine? No. Okay. Their concern was Speaker 1: And Ukraine used to have a lot of nukes, and they agreed to get rid of them on the basis of protection from Russia. Speaker 0: Those were Soviet nukes, and that was negotiated by The United States. But Right. Okay. All I'm saying is if you're thinking about it from the perspective of what's good for The United States, you do not want Russia becoming in close military alliance and economic alliance with China. You don't want that because that becomes a block that you can't defeat Understood. From which you will soon be taking orders. And every administration has understood this. The Biden administration went to the Munich Security Conference in February of twenty twenty two and had the vice president of The United States, Kamal Harris, say at a press conference, Tuzelinsk, we want you in NATO. NATO did don't want Ukraine. I there's never was a referendum in Ukraine what the Ukrainians wanted. We want you to be an American satellite with American weapons in your country. She said that knowing that was the red line. Putin's like, look. I just don't want Ukraine and NATO. That's a you've had all these countries around my borders in NATO. I don't know why you're doing that. I still don't know to this day why we're doing that. That's an aggressive offensive move, but you cannot have Ukraine. It's too big. It's too important. Our energy pipelines go through it. No. And they insisted on doing this, and Putin gave a speech immediately after to in Russia. No Americans ever watched it. You should. It's really interesting saying this NATO thing is too much. We have to invade, and we're doing it. Those are the facts. Okay? So the question is, why would you do that? Ukraine is not sovereign. It never was. You know that Ukraine cannot beat Russia in a conventional war. Russia's got a hundred million more people and much deeper Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean you'll let them all over. And Ukraine is a sovereign. It's its own Speaker 0: country. It's in what sense are they making independent decisions? I'll give you an in April of twenty twenty two, '2 months after this war starts, very clear that that Russia is going to win. It it's it's just a much bigger country, period. And so the Ukrainians and the Russians start having peace talks, and they move them around a bunch of different places. They wind up in Istanbul, Turkey, and they have a bunch of different data points. The first is no NATO. The second is what do we do with Crimea, which since 02/2014 had been, like, Russian aligned. Speaker 1: The whole separate conversation the way. Speaker 0: They took it. They they took it. What do you do with that? There's a Russian military naval base there, as you know. And what do you do with Donetsk and Lugansk, the eastern part of Ukraine? They basically reached terms in Istanbul. Two Months into the war, all of a sudden, the former prime minister of Great Britain, Boris Johnson, shows up in Kiev and delivers a message from the Biden administration. No. No peace. You are not allowed to negotiate a peace. This is he's telling a sov a, quote, sovereign country this. Some unemployed, you know, indebted Brit is showing up on behalf of The United States to lecture the so called president of Ukraine about what he can do with his own country. It's not sovereign in any sense. And they break off the peace talks. This is all like I'm not making this up. Look it up. And a million more Ukrainians died. The country's totally destroyed forever. And then Zelenskyy goes and changes the law in Ukraine to allow foreigners to buy farmland in Ukraine, to buy the soil of Ukraine. So you wind up with a country whose population has just been killed that no longer owns its land. So big American companies, multinational companies, you wanna just buy Ukraine. That's the total destruction of a European nation. And in The United States, we feel like, oh, no. We're fighting on behalf of Churchill. No. We just destroyed Ukraine because we wanna fight Russia. And now that is the core, the desire of the American foreign policy established to have a war with Russia. That does not make any sense to me. I'm not a Putin lover or I've I don't speak Russian. I've got nothing to do with Russia. I just don't understand why it's in America's national interest to be at war with Russia. It's not. And these are people with very deep emotional hatred of Russia. I can't even speculate as to where that comes from, but it's real. I've certainly seen it a lot, and it's not consistent with our interest as a nation. It's not helped The United States at all. It's hurt us. We spent over a hundred billion dollars when we're bankrupt, and all we've achieved is destroying this nation that didn't really do know, the poor Ukrainians didn't do anything.

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

What does it mean to be an American? The Chris Cuomo debate. (0:00) Chris Cuomo Admits Tucker Was Right (8:46) Joe Rogan Changing the Media Landscape (16:56) Andrew Cuomo vs. Eric Adams (20:34) How Do We Fix New York? (30:41) Debating Transgenderism (42:44) Who Killed JFK?…

Video Transcript AI Summary
It's great to be back after a year. News Nation has been a blessing. They've supported me, even with my brother running for mayor, unlike my previous employer. The media is treacherous, but that's not how the world works. It's dangerous when media destroys people by standards they wouldn't want imposed on themselves. The commodity is negativity, but I'm trying to offer something different. I'm in a unique position now, I have no boss and it's liberating. Power is shifting back to the people, and the media doesn't know what to do with it. Rogan and others have become influential outside the conventional structure. Independent media is credible because it's not controlled. Trust is low, but there's opportunity. I'm in the right place with News Nation, where we can explore issues without picking a side.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So last time we talked was a year ago, and you You somehow look younger. I feel I look like my worn out and fatter. I've been on the road I've been on the road for too long. The first day of Lent, I'm getting right now. But anyway, it's been a year since we talked about this, and last time we talked, I think you were still like and I probably was too little off balance from being vomited out of television world into this the great beyond. When I was seeing my this morning, I was thinking, I bet he's really grateful he's not at CNN now. Speaker 1: So it gives me no particular joy to say this, but you were right about Well, okay. I know. So don't get used to it. It's the last time you'll hear it in this conversation. You said give it time, embrace doing what you're doing, and don't look for the acceptance of where you were. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: And that was really good advice. It's not easy to do, but News Nation has been what I would call a blessing in my life. I didn't know it at the time, and, like so my brother's running for mayor, my bosses and, of course, they had the benefit of going to school on what happened with me at CNN. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: But the embrace, the willingness and acceptance of, wow, this is great for your family. You know, this is great for your brother. We're excited for you guys. I like I thought it was like a test, you know, that if I seemed okay about that, they'd be like, we knew we and the difference, the change of one conversation of them saying, well, we're with you. We support you. And I said, well, I'm gonna just tell the audience though I'm not gonna cover the race obviously because I'd have a conflict. And they were like, yeah, duh. They know that. If you feel like you have to say it, say it. And I realized, wow, they they really believe in what I'm doing here and supporting me. Speaker 0: I love that. Speaker 1: And so there's just a really profound gratitude. Speaker 0: So there's not this weird hypocrisy where they encourage you to have your brother on because he's famous in the news, this what CNN did do, from my perspective watching. They encourage you, hey, Chris, call your brother, have him on. And then like a year later, oh, wait, were talking to your brother? You're fired. Yeah. Like, it's too fake. Speaker 1: Look, as we both know, in every business and especially in ours, you do what you have to do to protect yourself. And if it's, you know, if it's me or you and I put myself in a position where I was vulnerable, then it's gonna be me. And that's what happened, and I accept it. I don't blame CNN. This was really about two people making decisions about my life, not the organization. I miss the people. I wish the place well. That is all true. But I have a connection with News Nation and these guys where I am anxious to bleed for them. I am excited about putting it all on the line every day, anywhere in the world because because of my upbringing and my disposition. When I know you're there for me when you don't need to be, it is not necessarily you know, there are a lot of big names that you could grab in the media right now. For NewsNation to give me the chance and to let me do it and to support me and to support me when Andrew decides that he's gotta be in public service, can't put a price on it, could never be grateful enough. So from a year ago until today, I now know that, and there is something comforting about that. It's an ugly business. It's an ugly time. The ugliest business. All the wrong things are being rewarded, but I'm in the right place for me. Speaker 0: It's funny in I mean, I don't wanna spend two hours beating up on the media because everyone hates them already, but it is it's been almost two years for me since I haven't worked in the media. And it's weird how you when you do work there for your whole life, you just accept that, like, yeah, everyone lies all the time, and it's totally treacherous, and people who claim to be your friends actually hate you, and every dispute is settled with a lawyer. It's like, it's just, oh, it's so disgusting, but you just accept that's like the way things work, but that's not how things work outside the media. Speaker 1: Nowhere else in your life. You know, it's part of politics and media. Right? True. They're certainly related, if not married. And I I think that the biggest frustration the look, you and I both know there are lots of great men and women who do the job for the right reasons. But as a culture, it's okay in the media for me to destroy you by a standard that I would never want imposed on me. And there is something that is really dangerous about that. Speaker 0: Agree. Speaker 1: When, well, I don't want you to know about my life, but you, we're going after. Speaker 0: A %. Speaker 1: And that dichotomy, let's call it, that paradox is really Speaker 0: Well, it's hypocrisy. Speaker 1: Yes. And it's really dangerous. And look, unfortunately, it works so well. You know? If if I were to cover you in any situation and put a positive spin on it, that's a puff piece. It's weak. Cuomo's been red pilled. He got bought up by that preppy smiley chucklehead, and if I then say, well, sat with Tucker, Speaker 0: and as Speaker 1: I knew it, devil spawn. Oh, that was a hard hitting piece. You know? He really came at them. We're such children. The commodity is negativity. If you wanna be a hard journalist, you better say something negative about somebody. It's a proxy for insight. Speaker 0: I just interviewed That's the world. Bank been freed yesterday from jail. It hasn't aired yet, but and I actually really enjoyed the conversation. And about five minutes in, I was like, oh, shit. I haven't asked him a single mean question about his business. Well, he's he's in jail for twenty five years, so I thought, I don't really need to make the case that he did something wrong. A jury's already, you know, already decided that. And I think it's okay just, like, have a conversation with the guy. I don't and then I thought, well, I'll probably be criticized for sucking up to Sam Bankman Fried, and I thought, I don't care, actually. Speaker 1: Well, look. You're in a unique position. Right? Because one, you have no boss. Two, the media is already not looking to be a friend to you. Speaker 0: You don't think so? Speaker 1: So you don't have to you don't have to impress anybody. Yeah. I'm not Speaker 0: gonna win them over. Margaret Brennan's not gonna text me congratulations. Speaker 1: You can do whatever you wanna do and there's and there's a lot of freedom in that. And of course, are challenges of you having to support yourself and find opportunities and build your own infrastructure. You know, there's a lot of entrepreneurial stuff that you and I never had to deal with before. Speaker 0: That's for sure. Speaker 1: So you can just have a conversation with him because the media doesn't know what to do with digital and independent media. The instinct was to disrespect it. Oh, of course. Right? Marginalize it. And I think on a reporting level, that's still safe ground. I mean, what's popping on digital media isn't investigative reporting per se. There are some Thieb, Schellenberger, stuff like that, but Barry Weiss at the Free Press, but it's mostly hot takes. But now that we're realizing in our society, and I'm very excited about it, power is shifting back to people and from institutions, and that's really uncomfortable for some people. Yes. I think the democrats are in a weird place where they seem like, which is such anathema as Mario Cuomo's kid, he was so anti establishment, but they seem pro establishment defenders of the status quo. I think that's a really dangerous place to be right now because I think power is shifting towards being disruptive of institutions and of the elites in a very real way, and digital media is much better positioned to be empowered by that than what they're now calling legacy media. I don't buy into that as a pejorative, but I see it, and I see that people are really open to getting a two things are happening at the same time. Siloed? Absolutely. But also, people are realizing that they can reach out and get different versions of events and takes on things in a way that they couldn't before, And I think that's really exciting, and the media doesn't know what to do with it. Speaker 0: So it's amazing, and, you know, I think the most influential people in media, I think you have to put Rogan at the top of that, you know, kind of don't work for anybody, and Nope. And it's it's just so interesting. If you look at the ads on Margaret Brennan's show, it's like, you know, Nissan and Joe Rogan, it's like prostate health cures. It's like that it's the whole guys like Rogan have become rich, famous, influential completely outside Yes. The conventional structure. Speaker 1: Certainly Rogan. But all Speaker 0: of them. I mean, of them. Megyn Kelly is enormously influential. I I haven't seen her ads, but like Speaker 1: But she's still corporate backed. Right? She's SiriusXM. She was Fox as as you well know. Didn't work for her at NBC, which really wasn't a surprise to anybody in there. You know, it's being a network anchor, being a storyteller, being a host that is accommodative of broad audiences that are looking to be inoffensive. Yes. That's a very different skill set that she clearly was gonna struggle with, so I wasn't surprised by that. But she's SiriusXM. Now Rogan is Spotify, but he built that all himself. Speaker 0: But you're wondering though, but still, I mean, Rogan is, you know, in some sense, like, bigger than Spy. He could leave Spotify. I think Mega Speaker 1: could leave I was surprised he took the Speaker 0: deal. Right. Speaker 1: I was surprised he took the gives him Speaker 0: a lot of freedom. But here's my question. You see every kind of mid sized independent business in America getting scooped up Mhmm. By private equity. So every veterinary practice, every dental office, EAC places, cemetery associations. Speaker 1: Like, Speaker 0: there is this inexorable trend toward, like, conglomerates. Yes. Small independents getting scooped up by some big umbrella group. That's gonna happen in media, I would think. Speaker 1: We are presently realizing so there was that big wave of deals that you and I missed in the podcast space where people were just throwing money to have a footprint in it. Right? Rogan was the biggest of those deals. Right? But then it went away. And when I got into it, I'm all self financed because well, I was damaged goods, but people weren't looking to just throw money at a podcast because no one was making money on those deals. It was like relearning the Howard Stern lesson that they paid him all that money at SiriusXM, and it's like, you know, what was the yield? Now different people are starting to buy up podcasts that are traditional media companies, and they are the seed capital behind the private equity behind those organizations are starting to buy up these properties again. Speaker 0: See, it freaks me out because the reason independent media are credible is because they're independent. Yes. They're not controlled. Speaker 1: Yes. Now I struggle with that a little bit. That absolutely can be true. And again, Taibi, Schellenberger. Speaker 0: Okay? Speaker 1: Yeah. But I don't dismiss and Barry Weiss. I don't like leaving her out. Free press is a really cool thing that she's building there. And I like that she's able to do something that I never saw at a news organization before, which is she's decidedly pro Israel. Okay? She's Jewish and beyond her own cultural and religious affinity, she has an ideological one, And she owns it and she's out there for it. You may disagree. That's okay. But you know, whereas what the world that you and I grew up in media wise, they had all these opinions but you'd never know it. You know what I mean? You'd have to glean it from what you saw on camera. Nobody ever came out and said it. You know, that we think that this is right. We think this is wrong. Very very rarely. So, what I like about it is I believe that there's space for all of it. Okay? When I got into this business twenty five years ago, they told me, you know network news is dead. Right? The number one show on television is World News Tonight. So the idea that it's dead, it's not dead, it's just changing and there's stratification. But I do think there's a challenge afoot. People in every different platform have to reconnect with their constituency. Trust is at an all time low with every kind of institution. Now within that is a burden for the media, but also an opportunity. That's why I'm so excited that I may have been in the wrong place at other phases in my career, but I'm in the right place right now because, like, News Nation is like one pebble on the beach at a time of, hey, everybody's going crazy about this, not us. Tariffs are kinda scary and they can hurt prices, but Trump does this and he's looking to get something done. Let's not microanalyze him saying tariffs like this is definitely gonna happen this way forever and let's see what happens. News Nation were allowed to do that. Most outlets have to pick a side. Tariffs, best thing in the world, Fox News. Tariffs are great. We can't wait. This is gonna be great. It's gonna unleash the economy. Get rid of the income tax. MSNBC. This is the worst. It's gonna crush the economy. You gotta have a take. You gotta have a side. News Nation is able to harness the independent mentality of there's a plus minus on this. Right? And we're gonna have to see here. Right? There's gonna have to be some patience. Right? And I love that space. It's harder. It's way harder than saying I hate Trump or Trump was sent by Jehovah. You know, those are much easier positions, but I believe in the potential Speaker 0: Honesty is kind of the kind of the point. I mean, I think you should be allowed to arrive at whatever conclusion you sincerely arrive at, and you should be able to tell people that that's your job. And if you work at a place where, like, you know that you can't say something you believe is true, it's the wrong place for you. Speaker 1: I agree. But look, we're benefiting from the change. Speaker 0: Feel that there are things that you it's an unfair question to ask you with the cameras going, but Speaker 1: It's the only kind you ask, Carl. Speaker 0: Yeah. I do specialize in that. But do you do you feel like there are things that you can't say? Like, if you came to a conclusion now, and I don't mean about, like, some individual sex life or, you know, like, nasty personal attacks, but I mean, like, a policy position that you came to that you would be like, oh, I probably can't say that. Speaker 1: No. I'm there to say it. Speaker 0: So really, you don't feel like there are any red lines? Speaker 1: My bosses are very worried about you advancing agendas that you don't disclose. Speaker 0: Now Me or one? Speaker 1: Me. Yeah. You know what I mean? Well, if you come to News Nation, then yes, you too. But right now, it's, you know, hey. Look. If you feel that way, just you better say it. Don't just stack your show with guests that are all on one side of something love that. And then pretend you're fair. So be honest. Be transparent. Speaker 0: The same thing. Speaker 1: Be transparent. And you may be wrong. Right? That happens often. But own it, correct it, move on. Do not hide the ball. Speaker 0: They really say that? Speaker 1: The %. Because also remember Well, admire that. Speaker 0: Just say I admire that. Speaker 1: News Nation is owned by a company that really knows local TV. Right? They own the most local TV stations. What is what has the most currency in media still? Visual media, local news. The boss of me directly, I have like 10 bosses starting with Dusty on up, but the Mike Korn is an ABC News pro who did every job. So he's not a corporate guy. He was in the field. He knows how to edit. He was in the control room. He was know, he did all the jobs. He's written the pieces. So he knows the alchemy of journalism. So he understands when someone's faking the funk and what's transparent versus what is what is trickery. So they they've got a good setup there for it. However, I'm still a Cuomo, and it was really important to me when Andrew decided he was gonna run that I had to go to them and say, I work for you. What do you want me to do on this? Do you want me to I I offered, do you want me to take a leave for dependency of the campaign? I'm not running the campaign. I'm not part of the campaign. That's not gonna happen, but if you think, you know, I haven't lived through this before. I don't wanna hurt NewsNation. What you're doing is so important, way more important than me. Do you want that? Now, obviously, they said no. You're being silly and traumatized. And and but that was helpful also. Speaker 0: So can can Andrew win? Speaker 1: Is that right? He win? Speaker 0: Yes. So I should say I know Eric Adams, and I and I like Eric Adams can win. I am highly distressed by how dirty and chaotic and dangerous New York is. I'm really, really bothered. I almost don't even care what the ideology. I don't care what, you know, rent control debates or tax I just I just wanna be safe walking down the street. Speaker 1: I get Speaker 0: it. And he doesn't seem to have been able to do that. Speaker 1: Well, let's defend Eric Adams, shall we? Speaker 0: I have. Which I'd like to hear you Speaker 1: do it. So have I. Why? Your brother's running against him. That's that's not what my family is about. If Andrew is the better choice for the voters in the primary, then he'll win. If he isn't, then he'll lose, and you sign up for that when you decide to get into it. Do I want him to win? Of course. He's my brother. I don't even vote in New York City. So it's it's you know, this is a family thing for me, but all you gotta do is Google it. I believe the indictment against Eric Adams was weak sauce. Yeah. And, yes, I heard much much later that they had more. They never put it out. An indictment is already just probable cause. It's the lowest layer of a prosecutorial instrument. Speaker 0: It's totally immoral for the government at any level to impugn your character without charging you. If you have the evidence, charge me. Speaker 1: And they they charged him, but they should have brought out whatever they said Speaker 0: they had. What they said is everyone looked at the indictment. It's like, wait. You accepted airline upgrades? And by the way, every member of congress does that all the time. Speaker 1: I believed it was weak sauce. Now other people disagreed with me. That's fine. But I didn't know my brother was doing anything politically when I started my coverage of mayor Adams. And I believe Trump's deal with him is not fair to Eric Adams. Should have pardoned him or dismissed the charges with prejudice, meaning you can't bring him again. Because think about it, Tucker. If I had that deal with you is right now, you're fine. You do what you wanna do, but we're gonna reassess after this event in the future that means everything to you. And then we'll see if I'm going Speaker 0: to process like a leash. Speaker 1: And I don't think it's fair. So, you know, your criticism, your analysis of, hey, I think he should have been doing other things. My take on that is okay, and the voters will decide that, but the guy has the biggest gorilla in the world staring at him like he's food, and he's supposed to focus on his job? Speaker 0: When you sleep better, you live better, you feel better, and you live longer. Sleep is really important, but there's a lot acting against us who are trying to get a good sleep, starting with screen time. It scrambles your brain, makes it hard to sleep. So we're thinking a lot about sleep, not getting as much as we should, so a new partner we wanna tell you about can help you. It's called Beam's Dream Powder. And it's made with a blend of all natural ingredients. It's not made by Pfizer. It's science backed. It's American built and run. And best of all, it legitimately tastes good. It can help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up feeling amazing. Everybody in the staff loves it. No more tossing and churning during the night. No more groggy wake ups desperate for the coffee. We're not the only ones who use it. So many people have used beam that has improved over 17 and a half million nights sleep. They're keeping track, helping Americans from all over the country wake up feeling good and ready to go. We're getting a huge discount. 47% off for this show. Try their best selling dream power. Get 407% off for a limited time. Go to shopbeam.com. Shop beam Com / tucker. Use the code Tucker at checkout and get a massive discount. We can't recommend this enough. Everyone here loves it. We think you will also it's an American company, by the way. Awesome. That's that's fair, but, you know, that was later in his term. Like, he he didn't take crime seriously. Nobody did. And so my question is, let's try and take your brother and Adams out of it. If you were running for mayor of New York, what would you run on? Speaker 1: Free pizza. Do you like it? Speaker 0: Now that Speaker 1: they're no longer a slice it. But now that you like it, you thought about it. Speaker 0: Do like pizza. I obviously, a lot, too much. I've given up pizza Speaker 1: for We both know the city very well. Right? New York New Yorkers deserve their reputation. It's a tough place, and it is a place where the rules have to mean something. It is too many people in too small a space Yeah. To have anything chaotic. It a little bit of a problem blows up really fast in that city. One, two, three, four, five things happen in the subway, it's like 5,000 things happen in the subway. The feel becomes magnified. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: So having grown up, right, I mean, I'm born and bred, I remember life in the seventies, and that's how people talk today. I think I could make a case that statistically, it ain't the seventies in a lot of different ways for the better, but that's how they feel, and I haven't heard this talk. I haven't seen people on the subway as I do now unless they're in their twenties and therefore unable to look up from their screen because they've been completely destroyed by these devices. Everyone's looking around now on the subway. When you're walking on the street, eyes are up, you know, people people have their hands out just like it was when it was in the in the seventies. I remember people were afraid. When you say you're going to the city Yeah. People talk to you like you need to have a plan. Yeah. And that's corrosive. It hurts property values. It hurts the corporate interest in being there. So New York is a place that uniquely needs to have that sense that things are under control, and that is not an easy job. Not an easy job. Speaker 0: Well, it just takes a fascist to do it. No. It does. Not don't mean so. Speaker 1: The way that just slides out of your mouth. It's Speaker 0: true. A fascist? Yeah. Like like Bloomberg. I don't mean I don't mean a fascist. Fascist in, like, hating people on the basis of ethnicity or anything like that. I mean, like, someone who enforces the rules and is not embarrassed about it at all. It's just like, I'm sorry. That's against the law. We're not putting up with enough for one second. No. You can't. And by the way, you're smoking weed on the street? How about no? Like, no. We're not a little bit of Singapore and New York City or honestly, as someone who travels a lot, I find it really embarrassing going to New York. I find the airport's embarrassing. The drive in is embarrassing. I'm an American. I love my country. Speaker 1: LaGuardia is the number one airport. It's my father's signature achievement. LaGuardia is the number one airport in the country. Speaker 0: It's way well, I don't know by what standard. I think it's way better. I agree. But, like, it took, like, twenty years to do that. It was pathetic. It's just like build a freaking airport like everyone else does. Speaker 1: It's hard. Andrew Speaker 0: was the only one Speaker 1: who could get it done. Speaker 0: Airport two days ago. I texted my wife for this picture. Was like, this is what we could have if people would stop being ridiculous. Build something beautiful, maintain it. Speaker 1: It's not that I agree, but the reason I come at you about saying you need a fascist Speaker 0: is I shouldn't have used the word fascist, but I mean, you like need like Speaker 1: That's why I'm here, Tuck. Speaker 0: You just need you need someone who's who's committed to protecting the weak. Speaker 1: Yes. But here's the difference, and I know what you mean. What I'm saying is this, and and and it's worth examining right now with what people are worried about with the Trump administration, is it's gotta be bigger than you. The problem with FAST is it's not about you. Okay? It's not about Trump. It's not about who's mayor of New York City. There's a system. There are institutions. There is law and order, and you gotta work within that and you've gotta be zealous about wanting those things to work for the right people the right way, but it can't get any bigger that for the individual. Speaker 0: Well, would I would just strongly agree with that. I'm totally opposed to cults because Bloomberg Speaker 1: was not fascist. I don't He was good at using the system. Speaker 0: That's a term that I Speaker 1: That's why he got three terms. Speaker 0: Yeah. Look. I hate I think it should be legal for politicians to name things after themselves. No politician should ever have anything named after himself. That's my view. Because we're paying these people. They're our servants. Why are they taking our money to build money and spend it to themselves? So I'm against all self aggrandizement by anybody, actually, especially politicians. I'm just saying it's the greatest city in the greatest nation on earth, and it looks like garbage. Like, it smells, it's dirty, it doesn't work very well. It's like it's not acceptable to travel around the world. Not everyone lives like that. Right. And we don't have to. So, like, let's just make it worthy of the great nation that it represents. Speaker 1: Look. I I think there are a lot of people who feel that way, and I I could explain it away. There are a lot of things that would be really hard to control that are at play in New York City, but it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. It's how people feel. And look, I I listen to my brother very carefully about this. As someone other than his kids, I mean, there's nobody that Andrew matters more to than me. Andrew raised me. He's not just my brother. Thirteen years older than I am. Everything I'm into are all his hobbies and attributes because he taught me all these things. My father was so committed to public service that he was away a lot when I was young. He was in Albany, and we were in Queens. So Andrew taught me how to throw a ball, taught me how to ride a bike, taught me how to tackle, taught me how to defend myself, taught me why why you're there for your family and how, taught me about why you gotta keep the driveway clean and how to work on cars, like all these things, how to fish, how to boat, all these things was my my brother. So I am really, really attached to him and his well-being. And when you hear someone that you love and care about say, hey. I think I'm gonna go run for office again. I've gotta serve. I know why that sounds great to New Yorkers, but to me, it's you want more of that? That is the dirtiest, most unfair, savage business in the world. There's no chance it's like he's telling me he wants to go wrestle a Komodo dragon. You know what I mean? It's like, hey. I really gotta do this. You're gonna bleed. They're actively gonna try to hurt you with no regard for the merits, and we call it the game, but it's like Thunderdome. So as someone who loves him, why would I be excited about him wanting to expose himself? Speaker 0: Of course not. Speaker 1: But look, when I hear him, it's like, you know, I almost tear up because it's so much like my father. My father used to describe public service. You know, my father hated that I went into the media, by the way. I'm sure there's I'm sure my therapist could have like a whole field. They don't even open that box of chocolates with my therapist because I know I'd be paying for the rest of my life about just explaining that. But his problem with it was, why do you wanna be part of a group that just criticizes people who are trying to get things done when you could actually be trying to get something done? And that's why he believes in public service. Andrew is the same thing. He skips right past the price of entry, which I could never I could never get past it. I'd be like, no way I'm gonna have a hundred Tucker Carlsons chewing on my ass like a dog toy every day. Not gonna happen. I won't I won't be able to handle it. I wanna fight them all the time. And he goes right past that to the all of these ideas about what he could do in that capacity and what needs to be done. And I'm like, yeah, but you have to go through this gauntlet to get to this place just to try to do this really hard thing. And he looks at me like, and? And? So you gotta I gotta support it. Speaker 0: I mean, I'm for that level of intensity. You just cannot let people wreck the city. You can't let them live on the sidewalks. Speaker 1: That's how he feels. Speaker 0: Can't let them smoke weed in the I agree Speaker 1: with you. I would just want somebody else to deal with it. Speaker 0: Yeah. No. Speaker 1: Because it's look. It's such a hellscape right now. Look what works in politics. If I'm running against you for anything. Okay? Strategy is simple. We gotta destroy him. What can we find on him? Speaker 0: Well, actually, think the lesson is it doesn't work because Trump is now the president. Speaker 1: Well, that is true. He did overcome. Speaker 0: They went after his family. They turned his sons in jail. Speaker 1: They overcome. In Speaker 0: jail. Right. They shot him. Speaker 1: But he is he is a unicorn also. He is the true Teflon Don. Speaker 0: But it's an inspiration, like, what you know, whatever you think of Trump or what he does, he's basically saying the same things he was saying twenty five years ago. You can pull the tape on Larry King Live about tariffs, about immigration, about foreign policy. He's basically I mean, he's changed, of course, on a lot of little things, but on the big things, exactly the same. And he just kept going, and and it worked. So Speaker 1: Well, I think that Maybe he's trying to Speaker 0: lesson that there are limits to what the personal That Speaker 1: that that's what I was gonna say, is that I think that he's more of a symptom than he is a cause. People the election message was you guys are focusing on things that don't matter to us the way you want them to. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: And what does matter to us doesn't matter enough to you. And what they saw in Trump were two main things. One, the personification of this, that you are trying to destroy this guy on a basis that we are not really okay with. And the second thing is that he wants to disrupt all the things that we believe need disruption. And his views between the cancel culture and different cultural wars as we call them, Donald Trump, for whatever you want to say about him negatively, approximated normal to the American voters more than the Democrats did. And that's Speaker 0: the that's the message. Just scared the crap out of everybody. But that's I Speaker 1: mean That's an example of what I'm saying. I Speaker 0: think there are many examples, but that one was, like, so florid and crazy that, and it's still going on, that I know I I to this day, I don't understand it. And we live in a world where there are always gonna be people who wanna wear women's clothes or whatever. Fine. Speaker 1: Oh, I understand it. I look. You saw it. You saw You Speaker 0: can elevate traineeism to, like, the top of the agenda. Speaker 1: I explain it to you very easily. It's it's it's readily apparent. And look. We saw the same mistake on display when the president addressed congress. Okay? That is not a time for you to be obnoxious. If he wants to be obnoxious, fine. You are there at a respect for the office. There are rules of decorum in that place. I believe there should be rules of decorum in all places, in media and politics, but there aren't. But there are there. And they willfully and wantedly abuse them to make a point that they are against Trump, and it was a bad look for the Democrats. What is it an extension of? We, as Democrats, they will tell you, we are resisting who he wants to abuse and what he wants to destroy. Like what? Trans are a unique minority in this country. They are uniquely targeted. They need protection. We are going to protect them. Okay. But this particular aspect of the issue, guys my size who decide to become female and play against my daughter in high school, that is not what you need to protect them from or against. That's something that doesn't make sense. Nope. We have to hold to the purity of the cause of protecting this minority group. Yeah. But you're not protecting them. You're protecting the people that are playing against them because they're two hundred and thirty pounds. Yeah. It almost never happens. But if it happens once, it's something that never needed to happen. The purity test, the absolutest nature of binary politics that if you are for something, you have to be all in on it beyond any conception of reason. That's what we're dealing with in our politics. Speaker 0: But if that's That's Speaker 1: what that Speaker 0: issue is. Well, of course, I can think of a million topics on which that is true. I think I see that with guns on the right, by Speaker 1: the way. Speaker 0: Maybe right. You know, I'm an absolutist on that. I could tell you why it's not even that interesting, but what I think but, you know, the right to self defense is a part of natural law. The idea that a man can become a woman by wishing it so is not only a violation of natural law, it's a violation of nature itself. It's, like, inherently insane. It's a denial of physical reality. And so why so the argument is, you know, there are people with weird sexual impulses who we shouldn't, like, scapegoat and hurt. I mean, I'm totally in agreement with that. Speaker 1: It is a perversion of live and let live. Speaker 0: So But but to but to to No. Speaker 1: In the interest of live and let live That's right. Tell a lie That's the perversion. Speaker 0: That's where that's that's when you feel like, well, this is a spiritual attack. Speaker 1: Well, it's it doesn't have to be a lie. In the interest of live and let live, right, which is a signature American freedom or should be. Right? You don't want these people to live the way they wanna live. You are infringing on their rights. We will protect them. Now I understand the political philosophy behind that, but once it entered a realm of where the people that you say you're trying to protect are now a problem for another group that need protection also, which are these kids, they didn't they didn't click into the common sense. Speaker 0: No. It's more than that though. It's like the idea that the government should be involved in people's sex lives is a shocking concept to me. I don't think it should be. Speaker 1: Me either. Speaker 0: And they're promoting homosexuality, promoting it. And I'll tell you how we know that they're promoting it, because its incidence has risen dramatically. Now, when I was a young man, there was a debate over what percentage of the population is gay. I was never anti gay for the record, and I'm not now. But it's an interesting question. They would say, you're born that way. You're born gay. So you cannot criticize someone on the basis of his immutable characteristics. Great. I totally agree with that. But then we saw the absolute incidence of self reported homosexuality, like, triple. So clearly, aren't born that way. You know, thirty percent of eighth graders were born gay? No. That's not true. And so there's been this dramatic rise that none of us are allowed to notice. It's like, you can't notice that. Well, why? Okay. Yes, I can. And I'm sort of thunderstruck by it, like, what is that? And it clearly is a manifestation of the deeper truth, which is maybe people some people are born gay, but people can also be moved towards self identifying as gay, and that's exactly what's happened. So why anyway, so, like, I don't think that's good. I don't think that's good. And I also don't understand why the government should be taking my tax dollars to convince people that certain forms of sex are better than others, particularly nonprocreative sex. Like, what the hell is that? Speaker 1: Well, look. I it's an easy legal and moral backstop that government should not be in the business of type. Okay? That's easy. There's plenty of things that government should be doing that isn't necessary. I believe that is an extension to how people choose their own bodies and how they use them. I believe in reproductive rights. I think it is a right. However, I see gay acceptance a little differently. The difference of a generation from our kids to us is it's much safer to say that you're gay now than it was. You used to get beat up. Used to get ostracized. You used to get excluded. That happens less now. It still happens, but it happens less. Is there also a cultural formation that we see like in America? Everything goes in these big swings in different directions, all these reaction formation. Are we more gay friendly in our culture, aggressively so, assertively so, than we were when we were growing up? Yes. Can that make it more attractive to young people who are struggling and trying to figure themselves out? Maybe. And that's why I remember when I was in college, there were a lot of people who were gay in college who weren't gay afterwards. Now a lot of them were gay in college and gay afterwards, but I think there's something to experimenting in certain people play out with So Speaker 0: it's like, okay. But I just wanna get to like the core question, is where does this come from being gay? Is it inborn? We were told you're born that way. Okay. So where's the gene? There isn't one. Speaker 1: I don't know the genetics, but I can believe Well, Speaker 0: one has isolated a gene. Speaker 1: Haven't noticed when you were raising your kids that there would be certain kids that you were like, I think this %. Be Speaker 0: gay? Hundred percent. Oh, yes. Absolutely. Where they Speaker 1: were too young to be mimicking it. Speaker 0: I did I absolutely did notice that. And so I'm not saying there's not a genetic component. I'm just saying, and I don't know the answer is the truth. But what I do know is if you've got a third of middle schoolers saying, I'm not heterosexual, that's not Plays to a fad more than Speaker 1: it does. Speaker 0: That's not inborn at all. Speaker 1: Think that there's two things could be true. You can have that it's easier to be accepted today. I'm not saying that that it's the same. I'd still believe that when people are gay, it's like the main descriptor of them, whereas you and I don't identify, oh, Tucker Carlson, you know him, straight guy. You know? But when you're gay, you still get labeled that way. But I think two things can be happening at the same time, that there is a culture of persuasion in, let's say, in a guided or misguided sense of acceptance, and I think it is safer for people to come out now than it was a generation ago. Speaker 0: Yes. Both are true, but it's, I guess, the point I'm making is it's really clear that the federal government, state governments, local governments, and NGOs are promoting homosexuality among kids, obviously true to me, and transgenderism among kids. And my point is that is not acceptable. And when I was a child, if an adult went up to a kid in a park and started talking to him about his sex life, you could shoot the guy, because that that that's not acceptable to talk to other people's children about sex, period. And now it's not only acceptable, it's the rule, and it's paid for by my tax dollars, and I'm just saying, like, that's really destructive. Speaker 1: Look. It is a very persuasive argument. I don't know. It certainly hasn't been my it hasn't been my experience in my kids' schools, public and private, that I felt that they were being indoctrinated Speaker 0: They didn't have pride Speaker 1: week. Into any Or pride month or pride celebrations. I don't remember it specifically, but even if they did. Let's say they did. I I I don't I can't prove that right now, but let's say they did. That to me is not the same thing as indoctrination. I have no problem with adults and children being exposed to different belief systems and different ways and different cultures. I have no problem with tolerance. Now, indoctrination is Tolerance. Speaker 0: Well, pride is not tolerance. Pride is the opposite of tolerance. Pride is a celebration. Right. And so you're celebrating certain sex acts with other people's kids, and I just think right there you've crossed a line. Speaker 1: Well, Pride Week doesn't have to be children. Right? When you have the Saint Patrick's Day parade, it's not making people be Irish. Speaker 0: I totally agree. I'm talking about kids. I'm talking about schools. You're talking about By the way, I don't have any problem with heterosexual pride, gay pride. You know, people are happy about the way that they live. That's fine. I have a huge problem with schools or governments getting involved in the sexuality of children. Speaker 1: Yeah. I got a % agree. Speaker 0: But every school does it. Speaker 1: There's not Speaker 0: one school that doesn't have Speaker 1: Their job is to keep everybody No. Speaker 0: But it's not safe. It's promoting it. Speaker 1: No. I got I got you. I get what would bother you. I'm saying their job is to keep kids safe, which means if my kid is gay, your kid can't beat them up on that basis. That's the role of the school. That's the rule of the law is, you know, people have to be able to live and be free and safe. It's different to you trying to teach my kid to be gay. If that's going on, obviously, it would be a plus. I mean, I think if I've never experienced that. Speaker 0: A massive percentage of middle schoolers are gay. In general, possessions are overrated, but there are some things you really would not want stolen. And to me, family shotguns, including a whole bunch of them I got from my father, are at the top of that list. So I keep my dad's shotguns in a Liberty safe because it's safe, and it's also really attractive. Liberty safe just created something really cool. It's a limited edition safe that commemorates the inauguration of Donald Trump, America's forty seventh president. The original design celebrates Trump and his swearing in while upholding Liberty's commitment to building their safes right here in The United States, and they went all out on this one. It's the special 47 edition. It features a one of a kind artwork that pays homage to the president. It's very, very cool. Not all safes are created equal. There are plenty out there, and a lot of the manufacturers slap an American sounding name on the label, but they are not made here. They're from China or other foreign markets. Liberty safes are made in The United States. For over thirty years, Liberty has made its safes right here, and that matters. Because when you buy a Liberty Safes, you're supporting American workers and American values. Their products are more than just a place to protect your dead shotguns, for example. They are a symbol of this country. So celebrate this historic moment. Secure the things that you want to keep forever in a Liberty Safe. Visit libertysafe.com or find a Liberty dealer, a retailer near you toward your limited edition safe today. Liberty Safe made in America. Let me ask you a question that for some reason seems to have sunk beneath the waves. The the JFK story sixty two years ago, the president's murdered. It's pretty clear that the story we were told isn't true, and it bothers people because it gets to a core question, which is, is the president, like, capable of making independent decisions, or is there a threat of physical violence against all American presidents that persists. Well Right? Speaker 1: We know there's a threat of violence because we just watched our president get shot in Speaker 0: the head. Of course. But from some organ from whatever group has been able to keep these files secret for sixty two years. So my question to you is like, what is that? Why have these been secret for so long? Speaker 1: Look. You know, the idea of the deep state to me is a convenience more than it is a reality. It's a boogeyman. Why don't they put it out? Because institutions protect themselves, Tucker, as we both know. Really? And there is clearly information in those files that are gonna make the CIA look bad. Speaker 0: Just the CIA? Speaker 1: Well, whatever. Different agents. No. Whatever. Speaker 0: I mean, let's Well, I don't know because I haven't seen Okay. Speaker 1: Well, so so here's But it could be the FBI, it could Speaker 0: be Okay. So I've always thought that. And then in January, you know, there was a scramble over who's gonna get what jobs in the new administration. And at one point, there was someone who was being discussed for a job in the intel world, and a member of the SSCI, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the intel committee, went to the people making the decision and said, you cannot hire this person because this person will be certain to push for the release of the JFK files. So this is in this effect. So this is in 2025, less than two months ago, and you have a sitting member of the United States Senate whose main goal is to keep those files secret. And then you have to ask yourself, what is Yeah. Exactly. Why? Yeah. Why? Speaker 1: Well, even all of that Speaker 0: course, this no one was alive. Speaker 1: Was sixty two years ago. Speaker 0: And by the way, the institution, no one could even tell you who the CIA director was and who do you remember the name of the CIA director? John McComb, I think, 1963, but that person is, like, completely lost to history except to specialists. I know. And the CIA has already been through fifty years ago, the church committee hearings, 1975, where we sort of note they're sassing people, dosing people with acid, all this stuff. It's like, the CIA's already been discredited. So if you're telling me that six weeks ago, a member of the United States Senate was trying to keep someone out of a job in order to keep these files secret that is to protect the CIA, I don't believe that for a second. Speaker 1: So what do think it is? Speaker 0: I don't know. But this is I mean, there's no one at the CIA who's involved Then. Actually, yeah, who's involved in the Kennedy assassination. There's no one in America who's involved in the assassination. Speaker 1: So here's what I know. First of all, I don't believe that the CIA has been completely discredited. I believe in the institutions. They have to be checked. You know, the media used to be in the business of checking the institutions. Now we're in the business of, like, defending them tacitly because we have a president that attacks them all the time. But the so Mike Pompeo gets in there. He's in charge of the CIA. Trump says, I'm releasing the files. Right. Okay? Somebody says something to Mike Pompeo that he then goes to the president of The United States and says, you can't release these things. And Trump acknowledges it. Now, do I believe that Trump did it under threat? No. I think that Trump just decided that whatever he was being told made sense. Speaker 0: But it's it's and I'm not even speaking of Trump or Pompeo, who's a very sinister person. You're absolutely right, Pompeo was the driver behind that, but who's driving Pompeo? I mean, it doesn't actually make sense, the story doesn't make sense. And by the way, we we have the file numbers Speaker 1: Mhmm. Speaker 0: Of most of the files that have not been disclosed. So it's like, Trump issues an executive order on January 23 saying you're gonna release this stuff. They kinda can't not release it, and yet now it's the March and they haven't released it. So pressure is currently being applied on the administration not to release those files. Speaker 1: It seems that way. Speaker 0: By whom? Speaker 1: I don't know. Speaker 0: Some, like, mid level analyst at CIA who just doesn't wanna discredit the institution he works for? Don't think so. Like, what is that? Speaker 1: I don't know. Who don't believe it's the Rockefellers, the Pope, and Speaker 0: I'm not even I don't don't believe that. Even guessing. All I'm saying is we can say with certainty that there is a force acting on these people, a very serious force, to the point where they're embarrassing themselves because they promised they'd release this and they haven't. Speaker 1: Look. I don't I don't disagree with Speaker 0: the What the hell is that? Speaker 1: I don't know. But it's not just that. Right? Now we get this weird story about the Epstein files. Like, who even cares? You know what I mean? Like, who I I want it released. I believe in transparency. I think it's the root to trust. And it's not just because I'm in the media, it's just common sense. But AG Bondi, I don't have any reason to be anti AG Bondi, and she says she's gonna release the files, and I don't even care that they released them to their pod people. I mean, I thought that was stupid, but I mean, that's fine. They wanna do what they do it. They're playing the preference. Okay. Now, then there's a story about, well, the New York FBI, they hid all the files and then they we're gonna have to get them. We're gonna fire this guy who's supposedly by most accounts is a pretty solid guy that they they had quit. Well, where are the files? Where are they? And because I thought Trump was the antidote to this. And to me, the heartbreak has already come and gone. UFOs to me is the best example of what Speaker 0: you're Back up, and I totally agree. I just wanna just linger for one second on the Epstein things. So what is that? I mean, once again, you clearly have a force that's applying measurable pressure on the people who should have the power, the elected president of United States should have the power under our system, that's called democracy, and his appointees have derivative power from him. But they appear to be powerless in the face of some other source of power, and the question is what is that source? Speaker 1: I don't know. And where's your boy Cash Patel? I mean, went in there to supposedly bust all this up. Speaker 0: I I can't answer that. Speaker 1: He put out this weird tweet, you know, that was very general, like, you know, things are gonna change, and we're gonna do this, and after we learned that someone under his control now, right, because he's the head of the FBI in that office that's under him, why wasn't he there? Why didn't he go there and say, give me the files. Give them to me. Speaker 0: Weren't you just saying the deep state's not real? Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't believe in the deep state as a boogeyman. What's Speaker 0: going on? Speaker 1: Well, look, they're his guys. I'm just saying, why didn't he go there and say, give me the files? Speaker 0: So let's let's just use logic. I I can't answer that question. I think it's a great question. But I'm let's just use logic for one second. Clearly, if you watch this, in my case, for the same as you, thirty five years, watching this stuff carefully and somebody, you know, gets in off, I'm do this, that, the other thing, and then, like, five days later, they're Speaker 1: like, well, Speaker 0: actually, someone has called that person to say there's something you didn't know. Here are the consequences of doing that. Someone has applied very serious pressure on this person. Pressure's so serious that that person is willing to humiliate himself. So wait Speaker 1: a minute. Here's the part I Speaker 0: don't So who's that person exerting pressure? Speaker 1: But you are uniquely qualified to get this answer because one of us can call the president of The United States right now and ask him, and the other one is me. So why don't you know? Speaker 0: That's a great question. It's the only kind I ask. So what I what I brought to it was the knowledge that a member of the senate intel committee, I'm not guessing, called over and said, you cannot appoint this person. Speaker 1: So why don't you expose that person, first of all, so we can start chasing after Speaker 0: you Tom Cotton of Arkansas did that. Speaker 1: Tom Cotton? Speaker 0: Yes. Correct. Speaker 1: And did you ask him? Speaker 0: I haven't. No. I haven't asked him. Speaker 1: What the Speaker 0: hell is going Speaker 1: on with you? Speaker 0: I'd like to, and Speaker 1: kinda makes people suspicious of you, by the way. Speaker 0: And make a go ahead. Speaker 1: Because if you know that Tom Cotton said you can't pick this person That is correct. And then you didn't go to him and find out why? Speaker 0: Well, I need to sit down with him. I'm not sure that he'll do an interview with me. Speaker 1: With you? Speaker 0: I'm winning. Speaker 1: You are you are like the spirit animal of that administration. Speaker 0: No. No. But it's it's a fair look. It's a fair question. It's a totally fair question. And and the answer is I hadn't thought to do that. And there's a lot going on, and I've been distracted, and I've kind of been Speaker 1: Now I think you're part of the deep state. And just like that. Speaker 0: Think that, I I probably wouldn't be saying any of this if was part of the deep state. Speaker 1: Unless that's what they would do, is make me think that it exists, but you're not sure because it's actually you. Speaker 0: One of the worst things that ever happened to me ever is last year when I was interviewing Putin. It was such a long interview, and it was being translated, and I couldn't always hear the translation very well. And apparently, in it, he says, you applied to work at CIA, which I did. You know, I'm not hiding that. I didn't get in. And and your father worked for the Intel world and all that. I didn't hear him say that. I did not hear him say that. And I have been living with that ever since I have nothing to do with any of that for whatever it's worth, but the the number of people have texted me, but like, oh, you're working for the CIA? It's like, no. Actually, nobody believes more strongly in radical reform at CIA than I do with, I would say, some knowledge of the subject. Look, I mean, people can think I work for the deep state, I I I don't. Speaker 1: I don't think there is a deep state. Here's all Speaker 0: I'm saying. Someone is applying massive pressure to elected officials and has for a very long time, and I would like to know who that is. Speaker 1: Ask Mike Pompeo why he told us. Oh, I have. Oh, I have. Speaker 0: And do you say? I got into it with Mike Pompeo. No. I mean, I I've talked about this before. I don't wanna be boring, but I when I'd tell Speaker 1: you to ask Dan Crenshaw, but he's not gonna take control for sure. He's not gonna come Calling him Speaker 0: a liberal. But you wonder Dan Crenshaw is Dan Crenshaw is emotionally out of control, and and I feel for I honestly, I'm not Well, stop provoking him then. I I didn't even provoke him. I just pointed I just pointed out. Speaker 1: You provoked him. I Speaker 0: saw it on stage. His state was just invaded by Mexico, and he's worried about Ukraine. It's like, what? Wake up, son. Here are your duties. Let me put them in order to your family, to your community, to your voters, to your state, to your nation, and maybe Ukraine down there at the bottom. But, anyway, that's all I was saying. Here's my point. Speaker 1: Please. Speaker 0: I am really concerned, not just because, you know, I am curious and I wanna get to the bottom of mysteries, which is true, but I'm really concerned that the failure to disclose big things like details about the murder of a president Speaker 1: Mhmm. Speaker 0: In a democratic country, republic, that that will convince people that our system itself is fake, and it's kind of hard to argue that it's real. I totally agree. Speaker 1: You can't even know who killed the president. Transparency is trust. Speaker 0: Sixty two years later, Mike Pompey was working to keep American citizens from knowing who murdered their president. Who are you working for, Mike Pompey? Speaker 1: Just had Speaker 0: an election. What is that? And by the way, just wanna say one time, you cannot convince me. I'm not some world expert of the CAA, but I've certainly watched it closely over the years. It's not the CAA. The CIA. CAA is like a huge federal agency with all kinds of different components and warring tribes within and, like, there's no CI Bill Burns is not, like, calling I I agree. Trump and being like, don't release the files. Speaker 1: I agree. Speaker 0: Just credit CI. Speaker 1: But look. The president knows. We just had an election where he was hammering on these things. And even with UAPs or UFOs, whatever terminology you want, we couldn't get more information. These things are all over the place. Sure. Some are helicopters, some are fixed wing. Okay. Not all of them, and they don't know? Of course, they know. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the programs, and then we get all our hopes up. Right? The media loves mocking News Nation about this because they think that, oh, Cuomo thinks they're little green men in the basement of some building. No. I don't. It's about knowing that we spend hundreds of millions of dollars and use special operators to do things that you won't tell us about, and at a minimum, you should say, well, here's why we won't tell you. Speaker 0: So what are they? That's exactly right. Well, so but what are they, do you think? Speaker 1: I don't know what the fuck they are. The the point is that they know and they won't tell us things, and I think it is anathema to democracy. Speaker 0: Can I of course, I agree with everything you're saying except one specific point, which is I'm not sure they know? Speaker 1: They have programmed they certainly know more than we do. Put it that way. Speaker 0: They do. They may know that they don't really know, which is the scariest thing of all. And I've certainly called a lot on this topic. I've stopped talking about it in public. I've tried to stop thinking about it because it's just one the things that drives you crazy. But my strong impression is that that they don't really know, that there isn't a consensus on this, and that they're not, you know, from Russia or China. Speaker 1: He campaigned on it. It was supposed to be a no brainer, then they put out exactly what the Biden organization Speaker 0: I'm aware of that. Speaker 1: Administration. I'm aware Speaker 0: of that, and I'm aware of that. Do you think I mean, that's just my view. I could be completely wrong, but I I don't think it's as simple as they know exactly what's going on and they're hiding it. Speaker 1: Well, again, these are your people. Why don't you talk to them? They love you. Speaker 0: Oh my gosh. I have. Speaker 1: And So what do you got Speaker 0: for me? Think Come all the way Speaker 1: down here. Speaker 0: We don't we don't Cross all these bridges. Know. And I think that's kind of the scarier answer is Flying over military bases. Shutting them down. And you Shutting shutting down military Yeah. Speaker 1: And you don't shoot them down and then figure out what it was that Speaker 0: was Maybe you can't. You know? So that's and so, look, I mean, I think we're getting to the same answer if if there is a very obvious mystery that's publicly known, there's public pressure to solve the mystery to divulge what you know, and you don't Yes. Then there's there's a real reason behind it. It's not just ass coverage Speaker 1: the Or do you have the arrogance to believe that you don't have to tell me? Speaker 0: No. Not anymore. Not anymore. Because now that, you know, especially in this administration that was elected on the promise of transparency, there's a there's a real reason, because there's tons of counter pressure. People are aware. Like, where the hell are my Kennedy files? What's going with these things over New Jersey? You said they were over your house in Bedminster. What is it? You know? And what is this Epstein thing, which all of us watched? George Stephanopoulos is having dinner with those guys. Everyone you know is over at Epstein's house. Ehud Barak is there every day. Like, what the hell is this? How who killed this guy? He was clearly killed, obviously. He wasn't commit suicide. Speaker 1: Alright. Look. Just start there. Show us the files that substantiated the theory of his suicide. Just show him Speaker 0: to us. But where's your investigation into his death, which you promised Show us. Attorney general Barr that you're gonna do Show us. And you never did. Yeah. So I guess what I'm saying is if you take three steps back, you're like, wait. This really is this isn't just you know, maybe some of the details are wrong or certainly, stories like this draw all the wackos like a bug light for sure, and they come up with these fantastical theories to explain it. But just the the knowable facts, the confirmed facts suggest something really, really big. Like, the moment that I never thought much about the Epstein story until I realized that the that the Republican two time Republican attorney general Barr lied about it. I thought, why would Barr lie about this? Epstein's a big Democratic donor. Barr was not close to Trump. He's not covering for Trump. What is that? And I don't know the answer, but that was the moment where I was like, woah. All of a sudden, Bill Crystal's lawyer is involved in this, which he was. You know, I don't know. There's just a lot. There's a lot there. There's so much there that it then it starts to make you nervous, and it makes you think, like, maybe the it's not just that things are screwed up on the margins, but maybe at the core is something really dark. Speaker 1: I don't know. Speaker 0: I don't either. Speaker 1: Look. Because look, this is the problem with the vacuum of information. Right? Is that you then start speculating about why they won't just tell you these things. Speaker 0: And And I'm not. I'm not gonna speculate on it because I don't I don't know, and I don't even have, like, really good theories. I do have some theories, but they could be completely wrong. All I'm saying is a rational person arrives inevitably at the conclusion that there's a real reason these have not been discussed. Maybe. It's not just entropy. Speaker 1: I have a conspiracy theory about it. I'm not so sure anymore. So we love the word patriot. Okay? We love it. We love to say that we're patriots. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know anymore. When I look at the Trump administration, I'm not accusing anybody of anything treasonous. I'm just saying there seems to be a lot of currency these days in destroying things, and I've never seen a president in our lifetime say that everything in government is bad. Trump is the only president, even his speech, which I thought was well written and well delivered for what he wanted to try to achieve, which is, hey, I got a lot of balls in the air. I know forget about me promising what would happen day one. Stuff's gonna get worse before it gets better kind of vibe, which I get why he wanted that speech given what's happening in the polls. But justice doesn't work. The elections don't work. Wall Street is corrupt. None of the institutions of government can do everything. All the tax dollars are wasted. It's like I keep getting the same message from them, and Musk to me has been a huge disappointment. I don't I believe the man is a genius. Okay? He has done remarkable things. He doesn't know that the federal judiciary is able to check the executive. He doesn't know that Social Security, the trust fund isn't part of our debt structure? I can't believe a genius doesn't know these things. So then why would he be messaging this way? Unless he doesn't want people to like the justice system. He doesn't like people to want Social Security. He doesn't want them to believe that government can do anything. And I don't understand that as a political message from a guy who's in charge of everything now, and what is underlying it in terms of your real ambition? Speaker 0: I think I can answer some of them. I think Elon, you know, builds electric cars and rockets and tunneling equipment and telecom, you know, satellite based telecom, etcetera, etcetera. He's a builder of things. He's a businessman. He's an engineer. You know, I'm not surprised he doesn't know the details of how Social Security is structured at all, and I'm not surprised that as a naturalized American, he's not, you know, didn't grow up at Schoolhouse Rock and doesn't understand the three branches perfectly. His job, from what I can tell, is to deal with the one thing that nobody has dealt with, which is which will be the end of the country, which is the country's bankruptcy. So the debt is, what, Speaker 1: 7? Speaker 0: 30 6 point 9, something like 37,000,000,000,000. Revenues last year, 2,024, total federal revenues were under 5,000,000,000,000. Okay? So that's that doesn't work. And at a certain point, you know, the people who are floating in the country, the bond buyers, the foreign bond buyers, like, I'm not and everything will collapse. And that's been known for a long time. No one has dealt with it. And from what I can tell, Elon's job is to try and get the spending down, and no one's been able to do that. Speaker 1: Well, get the spending down has to be in the budgeting process. To me, it's a penny wise pound foolish notion. I'm okay with getting rid of waste waste, fraud, and abuse. You and I grew up listening to both parties argue when the other one was in power that there was all this waste, fraud, and abuse, and you had to curtail it. And I'm I know it's true. It's always been true. Nobody has ever looked for it and failed to find it. I'm okay with them doing that, but I'll tell you what. If they had called up Carlson and Cuomo and said, would you guys like to serve your country and, see what you can find in terms of waste, fraud, and abuse? And we said, yes. I'll tell you what we wouldn't do is keep going off half cocked every day about what we were finding when we weren't sure. We would not do that. We would have immediately come to an agreement. Speaker 0: Yeah. We'd probably get Let's look. Speaker 1: Let's find stuff. Okay? And then we're gonna go to congress and we're gonna say, look at all this shit we found. And because we don't trust them, we would then go public with it at well at the same time. Speaker 0: Yeah. I don't think that's I we would have a blue ribbon commission and we present our findings. Speaker 1: But he's going off Speaker 0: half cocked. None of that's worked and I feel like look. We don't know if it's gonna work or not. I'm praying that it does because I think it's our last chance Speaker 1: to see the I'm fine with working. I want it to work. I feel like he's working against his own goals by getting things wrong Speaker 0: all the time. Maybe, but big picture, he's right. So USAID, which I grew up around in Washington, you know, I really grew up around it. I can just tell you firsthand, having seen it, it is a force for evil in the world. I think it does probably good things on the margins, but bottom line, it is destabilizing other governments. It's a form of the ugliest kind of imperialism, totally detached from American interests. It's, like, really bad. And the more you know, that's why it's so shocking to read it all, the more indefensible it becomes. Speaker 1: The secretary of state disagrees with you. Speaker 0: He may or may not. I'm just saying, you know, he's from Miami. I'm from DC. So I just tell you I I have, I think, deep exposure to this, and there's no doubt. By the way, USAID gets zeroed out. How many third world presidents complained about that? Did you see any being like, oh my gosh, we want our aid. They don't want American aid in that form because it destabilizes democratic governments. It overturns the culture of the country. Oh, you need more trans athletes. They hate it, and there's nothing they can do about it. I don't think a single foreign president in a poor country complained when we shut off that aid because they didn't want it. So that tells you right there. Now that's a minuscule part of the entire federal budget. Speaker 1: Agreed. And he just happened to start with the agency that's investigating him. Speaker 0: I I don't think USAID has an investigative arm. Okay. They do. Okay. Well, whatever. Elon's being, you know, attacked on many sides. Speaker 1: This was before anything happened. Okay. Look. I'm just saying you and I wouldn't have picked an agency that was looking into one of us without letting people know that. I'm not even aware of that. Speaker 0: Why did tell us? Big picture, the government is strangling the country. I don't think there's any doubt about Speaker 1: that. What does that mean? Speaker 0: It means that the richest place in The United States is the one place that produces nothing but bureaucratic jobs, DC. It's the richest place, and it's the highest concentration of wealth in The United States. The counties around DC are the richest. They're like the majority of the top 10 are in DC, and all that money is federal money. None of those people can ever be fired or are. It's not even clear what they're doing. A lot of their budgets are classified. The intel, AIC, it's like all cliche. You don't even know what they're spending. They own businesses around the world. This is a fact. I mean, they'll admit it if you ask them. And basically, there's no democratic control over any of this. The voters have no say in how this money is spent, and the people spending it are beyond any kind of correction. There's nothing you can do about it. And so it's it's truly out of control in a way that makes democracy impossible, and it's also they're acting in strong interest. So and then there's the debt overhang, which really threatens in an imminent way to make all of these conversations just irrelevant. If we're a poor country that can't support, you know, a military and can't keep up with our own infrastructure, then, like, none of this stuff even matters. Speaker 1: So do you believe that the answer is to change the institutions, to destroy the institutions? What do you think the answer is? Speaker 0: Everybody loves and appreciates first responders. When things go haywire, they're the ones who show up and make you safe, protect you, not just you but the entire country. Most people agree they're heroes. But what happens if they can't show up? First responders cannot be everywhere all the time. And if there's an emergency, particularly a big emergency, there aren't enough to go around, so you have to be your own first responder. Before an ambulance arrives, before a doctor can help, it is up to you to protect yourself and your family. And if it's a medical emergency, you could be out of luck because you don't have the right medications. Most people do not have the medications they need at home. There's an answer to that. It's called the JACE case. It's a simple but smart solution to a problem most people don't even think about. It's a set of emergency prescriptive medications created by medical experts. You've got peace of mind knowing that no matter what happens, you are totally prepared. Even if you're a prepared kind of person with stuff stored in your cellar, you probably don't have the right medications. What if there's an infection or any kind of crisis and you don't have access to first responders, you're gonna want a JACE case, medications on hand when they matter most. Go to jace.com and use code Tucker at checkout for a discount. Jace, j a s e dot com, check out code Tucker. So my sense is that you're not gonna get anywhere unless, and I think this was their calculation, you come out like a freaking wild animal out of a box, so fast, so hard that you intimidate the shit out of everyone into silence long enough that you gain momentum to continue the process of paring back government, but you really have to immediately occupy the moral high ground. You need to you you can't, like, get into debate with Benny Thompson over, you know, funding of this or that agency. You really have to get up here and look down at Benny Thompson and say, I can't believe that you're participating in this scam for decades that hurt this country, impoverished its citizens. You did this. And it's only from that posture that you have any power to negotiate the reforms necessary. You sort of have to do what the trans lobby, the human rights campaign did, which is you sort of come out of nowhere and rather than sort of make the case that, hey. Don't beat up trans kids, which I'm for, don't beat up trans kids or anybody, they come out and they're like, you're a transphobe. We're gonna pick at your house and kill you if you say anything. And people are like, holy shit. They're so intimidated that they just kinda go along with your program. I think a functional country doesn't operate that way, but this is not a functional country. This is a country that is, like, more dysfunctional than we will admit to ourselves, and that may be the only option for reform. But one thing that I think no honest person can disagree with, we need reform, like, immediately, on every level. Our military needs to be reformed, the budgeting process needs to be reformed, the way that our economy is structured clearly benefits just a tiny percentage of the population, that's not sustainable, etcetera, etcetera. Like, we need reform badly. We can't keep doing it this way. Speaker 1: Well, we've been saying that a long time. Speaker 0: I know. And Trump is the fur and again, I don't know if it's gonna work. I'm praying that it will because it's this country is the last hope of the world. I really believe that more than ever, having just come back from other countries. Right. Speaker 1: That's why we have to make our kids travel because everybody thinks America is the worst place in the world until you go somewhere else. Speaker 0: Dude, yes. You know? And the thing that we need to preserve, I'm more convinced Speaker 1: than that. That's why I'm a little worried about all the bashing of our institutions. Reform? Sure. Do it better, do it differently, do it less, do it more, whatever it is. Sure. But the idea that there is no more justice in America. I don't believe that. There all the elections are are rigged. I don't believe that. You know, we can't function. It's demonstrably false. So making things better is fine if you have the ideas and the wherewithal to make it happen, but what I'm sensing from this administration is it's all broken, tear it all down. And that's easy to say, but I don't know that it's good. Speaker 0: Well, it's actually easy to do. It's easy to tear things down, much easier than it is to build them, and you wanna be careful of revolutionary moments. I mean, very few improve things. Ours did, I think, in this country two fifty years ago. Very few others did. I can't really think of any that did. Speaker 1: Well, we had an oppressive force. You know, interestingly, and this is something I'm I'm very anxious for you to explain to me. So I get fired and I'm watching the Ukraine war, and it was personally maddening to me because I had not not covered a conflict since I got involved in the business. So I'm watching. The whole country's behind Ukraine. Speaker 0: When did you get fired? Speaker 1: Right there, like 2021. When did get fired? Yeah. So right when the Ukraine war broke out, I I was fired and it was very it was a real reinforcer to me about how much I had lost. Right? But anyway, I was much more concerned about what was happening in Ukraine. So everyone's on board. They're blue and yellow ribbons all over my name. Speaker 0: I was not on board at all. Speaker 1: Well, the country was. The Republicans were and the Democrats. Yes. And I kept hearing, boy, you know, it's like they're kinda like us. You know, they're fighting against the suppressor and trying to shut it off so they can be their own way and get away from the kleptocracy and everything else. And then Trump has that bad phone call with Zelensky, leads to an impeachment that I thought was a complete waste of time. You were never gonna remove him. And it's a political operation, so I didn't know why they did it. But that's their choice. They went their way. Then Biden comes in. Everybody's still doing what they were doing to try to help Ukraine. Biden is slow walking it, not giving them what they needed, the wrong kind of ambivalence. Now Trump comes back, and all of a sudden, all the people who are in favor of Ukraine on the right now say that it's a kleptocracy and Zelensky is a bad guy, and Putin, you know, not so bad. Russia, not so bad. Their concerns about NATO, pretty justified. It's really NATO in America that has done the wrong thing here and forced Russia's hand. And and Ukraine and Zelenskyy kinda did too, they're really dirty, and they're stealing all our money and selling all our stuff. I don't believe any of it, and I hear it all the time. You are a big purveyor of this, and I want to understand it. How did everything change this way? Speaker 0: Well, it changed because politicians in general, with some exceptions, but not many, have no principles at all, and they do what's popular, what they think is popular, and they respond just to one stimulus, which is election. That's it. And if they think something will get them reelected, they'll say it, and if they don't, they won't. And so they're just I mean, that's just what they are. I don't think it's even worth being mad. I mean, they're like animals whose behavior's really predictable, or machines, you know, you can program to do a certain thing, you know it's gonna do that thing every time. So the fact that, like, these guys are standing up and being like, oh, you know, Zelensky, who was my blood brother last week, is now a bad guy. Like, of course, they're saying that. I've said the same thing, I think, since day one, which is this is not in our interest at all, and we've really hurt ourselves, and we've dislodged the dollar from its preeminence, and that has consequences people are not thinking through. And Russia, of course, has an interest in what happens in Ukraine, and, of course, they don't want American missiles on their border any more than we'd want Chinese missiles in Tijuana. Like, that's of of course, that's a real thing. And moreover, the thing that you want, if you're thinking big and you should if you run America, the thing you fear most is the alignment of Russia with China, because then you unite the world's largest country, the largest nuclear arsenal with the world's largest economy and the world's largest population, and that becomes a bloc that many others gravitate to. We're calling it the BRICS now. And that becomes, you know, something that you can't resist that controls global trade routes, that controls global currency, and that reduces you, The United States, to the bitch position very fast. Speaker 1: Understand. But even within that, the premise is Russia bad, China potentially bad. Speaker 0: What does bad even mean? I mean, like Speaker 1: Russia bad means they are consistently invested in what's bad for America. Putin is a They Speaker 0: certainly are now. I mean, they're allied with China. So, yeah, that was not true at the beginning of 2022. And so I was just invading Speaker 1: Ukraine was wrong, what they did, and Ukraine did not start that war. Speaker 0: Well, the whole thing was wrong. No. Russia invaded Ukraine Yes. For one specific reason, despite all the lying from Anne Applebaum and the Atlantic Council and the professional liars and morons in Washington who got us into the Iraq war and Libya and Syria and every other disaster. I've never apologized or been penalized for it. The truth is that Russia's concern was that Ukraine remain not part of NATO. They wanna control Ukraine to some extent. It's their neighbor in the same way that we wanna control, I don't know, Canada or Mexico. You don't have to, you know, run the municipal elections in the country, but you don't want, like, if you had a government in Canada that was, like, bent on destroying The United States, you would overthrow the Premier of Canada because you can't have that. It's your neighbor. You're a great power. And that's how Russia sees itself. Now you could say, well, that's against international law or whatever, but that's the way nations behave, and great nations have an expectation they're not gonna have an enemy on their border if they can help it. Speaker 1: But NATO isn't inherently an enemy. Is to it is to protect against the illegal and wrongful annexation of sovereigns. Speaker 0: Okay. It's okay. Ukraine is not sovereign, and Ukraine's government was installed in a coup by the CIA in 02/2014. So it's not a sovereign nation. Speaker 1: Well, the Ukraine's regime. Speaker 0: We installed their government. They're not sovereign. Speaker 1: You Ukraine is a sovereign as you know. Speaker 0: In what way? Speaker 1: Russia had put a puppet in. There was a democratic revolution there that Zelenskyy wound up winning that election, second round of voting, that was to remove the Russian puppet who went back with a lot of money into Russia. Speaker 0: No. You're you're, yeah, whatever. I mean, you're skipping over. That's actually not at all what happened. Zelenskyy did not become president in 02/2014, which was when Maidan No. Speaker 1: But I'm saying that's Maidan Square was a reaction to a Russian puppet regime in that country. Well, That's what they were against. Speaker 0: A Russian puppet regime. Speaker 1: Where did the guy go back to? Speaker 0: Well, he fled to Russia Yeah. On on the verge of getting killed. But the bottom line is Russia wanted a friendly government in Ukraine. Okay? I get it. The United States, which is nowhere near Russia or Ukraine, went across the Atlantic Ocean to install its president in Ukraine in a coup. That's a fact, and they were caught on tape doing it. And Bob Kagan's wife was was caught doing that. You can listen to the tape. And so, okay, I guess both are bad, but if you're being an adult about it, you understand that great powers have an interest in not having other people's nuclear weapons on their borders. That's just a fact. And you could say, well, it shouldn't be a fact, but it is a fact. Speaker 1: So we don't have nuclear weapons in you on you on the border. The only nuclear weapon Well The only Really? Speaker 0: So NATO doesn't have nuke look. In Ukraine? No. Okay. Their concern Speaker 1: was And Ukraine used to have a lot of nukes, and they agreed to get rid of them on the basis of protection from Russia. Speaker 0: Those were Soviet nukes, and that was negotiated by The United States. But Right. Okay. All I'm saying is if you're thinking about it from the perspective of what's good for The United States, you do not want Russia becoming in close military alliance and economic alliance with China. You don't want that because that becomes a block that you can't defeat Understood. From which you will soon be taking orders. And every administration has understood this. The Biden administration went to the Munich Security Conference in February of twenty twenty two and had the vice president of The United States, Kamal Harris, say at a press conference, Tuzlinsk, we want you in NATO. NATO did don't want Ukraine. I there's never was a referendum in Ukraine what the Ukrainians wanted. We want you to be an American satellite with American weapons in your country. She said that knowing that was the red line. Putin's like, look. I just don't want Ukraine and NATO. That's a you've had all these countries around my borders in NATO. I don't know why you're doing that. I still don't know to this day why we're doing that. That's an aggressive offensive move, but you cannot have Ukraine. It's too big. It's too important. Our energy pipelines go through it. No. And they insisted on doing this, and Putin gave a speech immediately after to in Russia. No Americans ever watched it. You should. It's really interesting saying this NATO thing is too much. We have to invade, and we're doing it. Those are the facts. Okay? So the question is, why would you do that? Ukraine is not sovereign. It never was. You know that Ukraine cannot beat Russia in a conventional war. Russia's got a hundred million more people and much deeper. Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean you let them all over, and Ukraine is a sovereign. It's its own Speaker 0: country. It's in what sense are they making independent decisions? I'll give you an in April of twenty twenty two, '2 months after this war starts, very clear that that Russia is going to win. It it's it's just a much bigger country, period. And so the Ukrainians and the Russians start having peace talks, and they move them around a bunch of different places. They went up in Istanbul, Turkey, and they have a bunch of different data points. The first is no NATO. The second is what do we do with Crimea, which since 02/2014 had been, like, Russian aligned. The whole They took it. Conversation. Speaker 1: The way. Speaker 0: They took it. They they took it. What do you do with that? There's a Russian military naval base there, as you know. And what do you do with Donetsk and Lugansk, the eastern part of Ukraine? They basically reached terms in Istanbul. Two Months into the war, all of a sudden, the former prime minister of Great Britain Boris Johnson shows up in Kiev and delivers a message from the Biden administration. No. No peace. You are not allowed to negotiate a peace. This is he's telling a sov a quote sovereign country this. Some unemployed, you know, indebted Brit is showing up on behalf of The United States to lecture the so called president of Ukraine about what he can do with his own country. He's not sovereign in any sense. And they break off the peace talks. This is all like, I'm not making this up. Look it up. And a million more Ukrainians died. The country's totally destroyed forever. And then Zelenskyy goes and changes the law in Ukraine to allow foreigners to buy farmland in Ukraine, to buy the soil of Ukraine. So you wind up with a country whose population has just been killed that no longer owns its land. So big American companies, multinational companies, you wanna just buy Ukraine. That's the total destruction of a European nation. And in The United States, we feel like, oh, no. We're fighting on behalf of Churchill. No. We just destroyed Ukraine because we wanna fight Russia. And now that is the core, the desire of the American foreign policy established to have a war with Russia. That does not make any sense to me. I'm not a Putin lover, or I've I don't speak Russian. I've got nothing to do with Russia. I just don't understand why it's in America's national interest to be at war with Russia. It's not. And these are people with very deep emotional hatred of Russia. I can't even speculate as to where that comes from, but it's real. I've certainly seen it a lot, and it's not consistent with our interest as a nation. It has not helped The United States at all. It's hurt us. We spent over a hundred billion dollars when we're bankrupt, and all we've achieved is destroying this nation that didn't really do you know, the poor Ukrainians didn't do anything. It's horrible Well what we've done. Speaker 1: Zelensky articulates a very different case. Right? He wanted Speaker 0: What's his case? Speaker 1: His case is he wanted America and Europe to help them fight back Russia because Russia wants to reestablish the USSR, and he wants to keep Ukraine sovereign. Of course, he has cultural and geographic issues in the eastern part of his country, and that has been an ongoing problem for them. I was in Ukraine when the Russian separatists shot down that Malaysian Airlines plane, lied about it, wouldn't let the bodies be reclaimed. It was the whole thing. Putin installed a guy named Borowski, was supposedly a prime minister of Donetsk. It was all bullshit because that's what Putin is. So they wanted help. They wanna stay sovereign. America was helping with them them with that, and now all of a sudden, Zelensky is a thief. They're stealing all our money. They're selling all our weapons to Mexican cartels. None of these things are true. Speaker 0: Well, that is that is true. Speaker 1: Why? No. No. It is not true. Speaker 0: It's not Just just I'll I'll I'll just I Speaker 1: don't even understand. Just go off Speaker 0: the point order. Give me the point of it, Speaker 1: and then you could talk Speaker 0: to potential Just to define sovereignty. Sovereignty is the freedom to make independent decisions, and Ukraine does not have that and has never had that since 02/2014 when its government was installed by an American coup. Speaker 1: Zelensky would say he was democratically elected and not democratically elected. Speaker 0: He's passed his term. Wow. And so by what authority does hold on. Let me ask question. Speaker 1: Go ahead. Speaker 0: Ahead. By what authority does Zelensky negotiate on behalf of this country, rule his country? He just he just put his main political opponent under indictment and froze his personal funds under internal sanctions, the security services of Ukraine. Speaker 1: Sounds familiar, doesn't I don't We just we just went through the same thing in this country. Speaker 0: Sounds like dictatorship, Speaker 1: by the way. No. But he's not a dictator. And that's Then by what authority does he rule Ukraine? So here's how. He was elected, and now under their constitution, he does have the ability to stall elections and operate under martial law during the conflict. Speaker 0: So you're comfortable with people saying I'm gonna no. He could certainly have an election if he wanted. Speaker 1: If he wanted, but he has Speaker 0: empowered an election. You're from a political family. Speaker 1: Same thing with Israel right now. They're not having elections either because they're in the midst of an active conflict. It's not a time for transition of power. Speaker 0: Okay. But I don't know why we make excuses for dictatorship. Speaker 1: It's not a dictator. Speaker 0: Of course it is. Any unelected leader who has Speaker 1: the power He was elected. Speaker 0: Elected. He has a presidential term. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: If Joe Biden just said, you know what? We're in a conflict right now. I can't have elections. I'm canceling the election, or if Donald Speaker 1: Trump But there's constitutional provision for it. Speaker 0: If if okay. He could have an election whenever he wanted. He could have election right now. No one doubts that, actually. And his opponent was calling for that before he was just shut down by the Ukrainian intel services a week ago. So there's no authority. He doesn't have democratic authority over his country. What he has is a lot of NATO weapons. And to your second point, he has absolutely, as a matter of fact, the Ukrainian military has sold those weapons on the black market around the world, and they have these these are facts. They've wound up in the hands of, among others, the Mexican drug cartels, the Taliban, Hamas Hamas in Gaza. Fact. And and a lot of other groups, and it's incredibly destabilizing, by the way. The United States did this years ago in Afghanistan, as you know, and sent a bunch of STNGR missiles to the Mahajidin in nineteen seventy nine and eighty to fight the Soviets, and those missiles caused huge problems for all of Southwest Asia for, like, twenty years. And so this is a big deal, and I don't know why people feel like they have to lie about it. Now Speaker 1: I don't I don't know that it's about lying about it. I don't agree that those are facts. Speaker 0: You don't believe that that the Ukrainian military you know what? Because I'll tell you why. I'll bet you my car that in the next Speaker 1: What kind of car is Speaker 0: it? With some crappy Speaker 1: Oh, then I'm not gonna bet that. Speaker 0: Okay. No. I don't have nice cars. I'll admit that. Speaker 1: I do. Bought a new car because we're not doing a swap. Okay. Speaker 0: But, anyway, the point is that's and as I no one believes me. I know someone who bought some of the weapons. I'm just, you know, whatever. I can't. Speaker 1: Well, first of all, you would have to substantiate, you know, who it is that you knew because Speaker 0: Do you believe the most corrupt country in Europe, which is so corrupt that NATO didn't want it as a member? You believe it's outside the realm of possibility that facing defeat, the leaders of that military would not sell the weapons that you're getting from the West? Speaker 1: Cannot substantiate a claim on the basis of mere suspicion. That because there's It's Speaker 0: not mere suspicion. Speaker 1: Hold on. I know someone who Speaker 0: bought some of the weapons. Speaker 1: I believe that you think that. What I'm saying is I Speaker 0: don't think that. I know it. Speaker 1: I'm saying that, well, you know that they say it. You don't know whether they did, and I'll tell you why I'm suspicious. Because the the missiles that Russia put out those pictures of were from like 2014, and they didn't even have Javelins then. So the idea that Ukraine could have been selling weapons that were taken from a different time as an obvious ploy by Russia to make them look bad is to me propaganda Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: And not proof that they did it. Okay. Are you texting while I'm having a conversation Speaker 0: with you? I'm texting right now. Speaker 1: Very rude. No. No. I'm Speaker 0: texting on WhatsApp right now on this exact subject. Speaker 1: Tucker, I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying I'm disagreeing that it's a fact that the military there is spending weapons that they very much need to Mexican cartels. Why does Mexico's cartels need to get weapons from Ukraine when they get them across our border with straw buyers all the time? I mean, to me, it doesn't even make sense from a practicality standpoint, but it seems Speaker 0: like you can get surface to air missiles from straw buyers. Speaker 1: No. Not surface to air missiles. Not so no. Small arms. Small arms. No. Small arms. Speaker 0: Small arms, you know, small arms you can buy anywhere. No. No. I'm talking about weapon systems. Speaker 1: But this is this is not documented stuff, and it seems to wanna smear Ukraine to make them the bad not that I Russia the good guy. Speaker 0: Ukraine okay. This is one of those topics that I'm I'm just gonna Speaker 1: I'm not mad at you, Bob. Speaker 0: No. No. I'm because I know this is true because I'm Speaker 1: not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I don't know. It's fact, Speaker 0: and unfortunately, I can't, and maybe I shouldn't have brought it up because I can't name the person who Speaker 1: I don't want you to expose a source. What I'm saying Speaker 0: is, look, people Let me let me let me put mine Speaker 1: by saying things with money Speaker 0: that we give huge amount of knowledge on this one topic. I'm wholly ignorant of many topics. Speaker 1: I know Speaker 0: a lot about topic. Speaker 1: And you think Zelenskyy is a bad guy who's a dictator? Speaker 0: What I'm telling you is the Ukrainian military has sold huge amounts of American supplied, NATO supplied weapon systems around the world, and that they're purchasable now by governments and armed groups and are being purchased. Speaker 1: And why hasn't it been documented? Speaker 0: I'm I'm just telling you that I if if this this will be documented, and I got that directly once again from someone who purchased quite a few of those weapons, who I know personally, and in another country, and knows a lot about this, and runs a military, and and it's just frustrating because I can't I can't say that. Speaker 1: Look. My point is not to frustrate you, Tucker. It's to understand this mentality of framing Ukraine Speaker 0: and Zelensky as the bad guy. It's look. It's noting the facts. The guy's not elected. Speaker 1: He is elected. His term has been expended constitutionally. Speaker 0: Comfortable if we were well, we are in a war with Russia right now. If Donald Trump no. It is war with Russia. Americans have died It's a proxy. It's a war that we're funding. Speaker 1: We're not on the ground there. Speaker 0: What do mean? There are many Americans in Ukraine fighting. US military There are US military. Yes. There are. Speaker 1: Look. I know that there are What Speaker 0: are you talking about? There Speaker 1: are They're not they're not actively fighting Russian Speaker 0: forces. Weapons into Russia? Yes. What do you mean they're not actively fighting? They're absolutely actively fighting war. Speaker 1: Have have we declared war? Speaker 0: Of course not. We didn't declare war in Vietnam or Korea. That doesn't mean anything. Speaker 1: True. Did in Iraq? Speaker 0: Declare. I guess we did. That went well. Speaker 1: There was a congressional vote. Of course. Speaker 0: But the point is, if Trump were to say, we're at war with Russia, I can't have an election, I would say that's not legitimate. You do not have the authority to extend, and I don't care, you know, what pretext you make up for it. You can't put your opponents in jail. You can't But more than anything, what I'm saying is that this is scary. It's not even blaming Zelensky. There are many power centers within Ukraine. There's the military, the intel services, there's the president's office. There are competing political Speaker 1: People say the same things about us, by Speaker 0: the way. Of course. It's true. It's true. Especially true here. It's a huge country. I'm not even blaming Zelensky directly. I'm saying this is the largest country in Europe. We have poured billions of dollars in pretty high-tech weapons systems into this country, and we're not keeping track of them. We also have bio labs throughout the country. We have bio labs. Speaker 1: I'm not And we're about to have more of a footprint because the mineral deal will put American companies on the ground in those areas that are right now war All Speaker 0: I'm saying is we've funded the worst war Europe has seen since World War two for three years. That entails an awful lot of weapons, including bioweapons. I'm not guessing. This is a fact. Torrey Nulins said it in a conversation with the now secretary of state Marco Rubio in the senate on camera. So there are biolabs in Ukraine with biological weapons in them. Who the hell is keeping track of this stuff? That's all I'm saying. It's not an attack on Zelensky. We have a moral obligation to keep track of this stuff. There's never been an audit. Speaker 1: I have no problem with that. Speaker 0: It's fucking crazy. Speaker 1: I have no problem with keeping Speaker 0: track of Destabilization of the world. Like, why are we doing this? Speaker 1: It's funny. Believe that we should just back out of what we're doing there now and let Russia take it? Speaker 0: Russia take it? I don't know. At this point, Russia has Russia has we're not in charge. Russia just won. They beat us in their war. In case you haven't noticed, Russia outproduced in munitions NATO, including The United States, Four to one. So we just lost the war. So we are not negotiating from a position of strength. Sorry. I'm not taking Russia's side. I'm on America's side. This is terrible for us. We've exposed how weak we are. We couldn't beat Russia, which many members of the US senate assured me was, quote, a gas station with Speaker 1: That was McCain's line. What a fucking Speaker 0: idiot that guy was. What an idiot he was. Low like I knew him and I liked him, but he was he was like an idiot of gas station with nuclear weapons. Really? Speaker 1: Have you See, I saw it the other way, which is we thought Russia we thought Russia was gonna roll over Ukraine, and they have been unable to really move the line. Speaker 0: Us. They took a big chunk of Eastern Ukraine, and for three years, we've progressed toward bankruptcy trying to stop it, and we've not been able to. They won. This is bad. It's bad for American prestige. It's bad for the projection of American power. Everyone knows what we're capable of and what we're not capable of. It's divided our country. All these dumb Ukraine people are flying foreign flags in front of Speaker 1: their houses. I feel that the division is forced in this country. That to me, it seems pretty basic that Russia can't have Ukraine because it doesn't stop What are we gonna do? Speaker 0: It doesn't stop at Ukraine. Already but okay. But at some Speaker 1: point Estonia and Latvia Speaker 0: and Estonia. You know, it's always some chick, that blonde chick. I'm I'm president of Estonia. You know, a country of 5,000,000 people that invented the sauna. By the way, I'm part Finnish. I'm not against Estonia. I'm sure it's great, but the idea that some woman who's never been in the armed service, like, resetting military policy for the EU, you know, we're gonna do this. We're gonna you can't do anything. You don't have an army. Britain's army is smaller than the US Marine Corps. NATO, which is a coalition that includes, by the way, Turkey, it's like this huge coalition, couldn't beat Russia. That is the fact. I don't want that to be the fact. That is the fact. But I So Americans are like, Speaker 1: well, we Speaker 0: don't can't allow this. Speaker 1: Well, what are gonna do? I don't say that it's a fact because we are not fighting in earnest in that country. Speaker 0: So what okay. So what would you I'm just okay. Here here are the terms. We have a nuclear armed power, largest nuclear arsenal in the world that is fighting for its very life that is aligned with China, k, which is the largest economy. Speaker 1: Well, I don't know that Russia's fighting for its life. I think Putin forced this situation. Speaker 0: Okay. Whatever. Leaving aside moral culpability, I'm just saying it's a big deal for them. It's on their border. It's their border. Okay? So we don't like it. We weighed in on the other side to fight Russia. We haven't won. So now what are our options? Like, actually, what are our options? Speaker 1: The options are what president Trump is doing right now, which is to try to get the parties to the table and draw a line in the sand and make a deal. Speaker 0: Right? That's the only option I see. I don't see any other options, but maybe I'd love to hear what they are. Speaker 1: No. I mean, there's never any other option unless you wanna actively fight and take territory and occupy. Speaker 0: Who's gonna actively fight? There are no Ukrainians left. Speaker 1: Well, look. Both sides are manpower poor. Right? You know the stories about Russia emptying the prisons. Speaker 0: Russia has a hundred million. Speaker 1: A 40,000,000 people, Speaker 0: but they A hundred million more people. Speaker 1: But have you ever heard of us emptying out the prisons? I mean, why does he have to do that? He's in a desperate place. Speaker 0: He doesn't want his citizens to have to fight an unpopular war because he's worried about his popularity because he wants to stay in power. So it's easier to send convicts to the front. They have done this for I'm against it, but I'm just saying that's the fact. The point is Speaker 1: You think Putin is concerned about his popularity in a place where he kills all of his opponents on a Speaker 0: regular basis? Concerned about his popularity. Really? Speaker 1: When he completely engineers the outcome of every thing that happens Speaker 0: in Russia? Russia is a very complicated place with a lot of different competing power centers, including the FSB, which Speaker 1: is so And how has he stayed in power so long? Speaker 0: Because he's really good at politics, and he pays very close attention to what the public thinks. Very close. He's got the well, just like any country. It's a first of all, the You Speaker 1: know how lousy life is there for people. Right? Speaker 0: Well Speaker 1: And not just because the economic sanctions right now. It just has been. I mean, you know, Speaker 0: do talk Have you been there recently? Speaker 1: Recently? No. No. I've been there Speaker 0: twice in the last year. Speaker 1: Why are you allowed in? Speaker 0: I don't know. I'm an American Speaker 1: friend of Putin. That's I'm a friend of Putin. Speaker 0: I believe in seeing things and reaching my own conclusion. Speaker 1: Oh, me too. I'm just I'm not allowed in there as a journalist. Speaker 0: I'm sure you could call right now and they will let you in and you should go. Speaker 1: Just wouldn't let me out. Wind up like Paul Whaley. I I think And you wouldn't be arguing my case. Speaker 0: But look. Here's the point. No. No. Russia does not have absolute control of his country, and there are all kinds of potential rivals. He's been there for Speaker 1: twenty You sound more sympathetic towards him than towards Zelensky. Speaker 0: I mean, you just Well, I'm definitely more sympathetic to Putin than Zelensky for the following reason. I judge I'm not and I'm not sympathetic to Putin in the sense that I don't wanna move to Russia. I don't see Russia as, like, a close friend of mine at all, or a free country, or anything like that. I'm just saying I think it's fair to judge leaders on how they do for their country. They have one job. Do a good job for your country. Make it better. Speaker 1: And You think Russia's doing well? Speaker 0: Oh, a lot better than Ukraine. I mean, a a lot of Ukrainians have fled Ukraine to Russia a lot. Speaker 1: A lot. Well, yeah. They're under siege right now. Speaker 0: No. But I'm just saying, like, Russia, actually, for a country at war, is thriving. You know, I think it's got deeper problems. War is not good for any economy over time or any country over time, but there's been such a massive infusion of Chinese investment into Russia in the past couple of years that people in, say, Moscow, city of 12,000,000, you know, they don't feel a probation that populations under war typically Speaker 1: There's a reason he made that deal with North Korea to have their people back them up on the battle lines. Speaker 0: I'm sure. I'm sure that's exactly right. I mean, are lot of theories on that. I've heard a lot of things, but here's but here's the only point that I'm making from an American perspective. Americans fall into this trap, which is a childish trap, where they superimpose, like, a really clear moral dichotomy onto foreign conflicts where there's, a great guy and an evil guy. Yes. And they're able to do that because they don't know anything because they've never been anywhere, and they don't actually their leaders, I'm talking about, don't kind of take the time to understand that they don't understand. The more you know, the more you realize you really don't know, because do you speak Russian? I don't think so. So, like, how the hell do you know what's going on? You don't know. The best you can do is, like, be open minded and let evidence guide your conclusions. So from an American perspective, what we've learned is The US capacity for projecting strength through the military is a lot less than we thought it was. We couldn't beat Russia. We didn't beat Russia. They won. Speaker 1: Do you really think that America was putting the full force of its might into that situation? Speaker 0: Short of nuclear conflict, yes. Speaker 1: Zelenskyy has done nothing but complain about us not giving them what they needed. We gave them, like, high Mars. Everything we're giving them mean, you know, because you've been studying the I've been there twice during the conflict, and it's like World War one level warfare there. No. It's we're using our most now they're using drones from like retail. Speaker 0: High-tech warfare ever conducted. In fact, it's so high-tech, it's moving so fast that I don't think most people even understand what's going on there, Speaker 1: but it's a warfare trench yeah. Now there's been an infusion of drone technology that they're using, but they were Speaker 0: digging trench like, Americans can't you you just need to, like, change your mind a little bit on this. We don't have the power to do everything that we want around the world. Agreed. We certainly can't do it simultaneous. Agreed. And my concern about entering into hot wars with anybody is that you expose your weakness. You if you enter into a hot war zone, you have to win. Otherwise, everyone knows how weak you are. Speaker 1: And then But you don't think that's true for Russia that they don't look really weak because they couldn't roll over Ukraine? They said it would be done in two days. Speaker 0: The truth is it's a silly conversation. Russia's nuclear weapons, it is hypersonic weapons. Russia could eliminate Ukraine in about ten seconds. Speaker 1: Well, it's bombing residential areas. Keep it It's going after I'm not infrastructure where they know civilians are, so it's not like they're holding out. Speaker 0: I mean, let's, like, let's just be honest. And I hope they never will, and I hate war, and I hate So why haven't they? Speaker 1: The way. Let's say, of course, they could. They're nuclear They're joking. Speaker 0: They have hypersonic Speaker 1: weapons. So but they're not. Speaker 0: So why entire city like that because they But they're not. Because that's World War three. That's why. Right. And they wanna get out without a nuclear exchange. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: And what I worry it's not a defense of Russia. By the way, anybody who's trying to avoid a nuclear exchange, I'm on your side. Yes. And that would include almost no Republican members of the of the senate. Okay? They're all, like, full blown. They're old. They don't care. Like I said, they don't care about their grandkids or humanity itself or whatever. They're totally willing to risk nuclear war. Speaker 1: Although Lindsey Graham just took a step backwards, which I thought was surprising. Speaker 0: It's completely silly. He's blaming look. A lot's gonna come out. We reached an impasse on the question of whether Ukraine is selling weapons. They are. That's a fact, and I bet my house on it. Okay? I know that to be true, but I can't tell you how I know that. So I'm gonna have to just wait to be vindicated, I guess. Speaker 1: But it's not a debate. I'm just saying that it seems that Speaker 0: But let me Speaker 1: just the line has shifted, and now Ukraine is the bad guy. Speaker 0: Okay. Haven't heard anything about Ukraine for the past three years. You were required in I got fired over this, so I know. You were required to pretend that Zelensky, who I think is a complicated person for whom I feel sorry, actually. I feel I feel like he's a a pawn among bigger powers. Okay? I feel bad for Zelensky. But we were required to pretend that he was Jesus and that Vladimir Putin was Satan. And my only point is that's not true, actually. It's way more complicated than that. Both of them have good and bad qualities. And moreover, it's not our it's not our fight. Like, what are we doing there? This whole thing is so nuts just because you're mad at Russia for some reason that you'll never say out loud. We have to take our country to war there? And by the way, can I just say something? Sure. Why mean, this war has, like most wars that we fight, been promoted by some of the richest people in our country. And I'll name one, Ken Griffin, who is a hedge fund billionaire, has really pushed hard, and I've seen it, behind the scenes to force Republican politicians to support bigger payments to the Zelensky government. And it's like, Ken Griffin's a multibillionaire. He's probably, I don't know, millions of dollars on lobbying on this issue, but he hasn't spent billions on Ukraine. He could send billions of his own money to Ukraine. A lot of the Ukraine war supporters could do it. They could also go fight the war. They're conscripting 50 year old men, guys with Down syndrome. The videos are all over the Internet, and they're real. I hear from people in Ukraine on the sub Speaker 1: Those videos, I've seen. Speaker 0: Yeah. So I haven't noticed any Bill Crystal's not fighting in Ukraine. Why is that? Why is Ken Griffin not sending billions to Ukraine? No. What they're doing is pressuring The US media, pressuring the US Congress to do something that they themselves are not willing to do, up to and including sending American troops, which we have in Ukraine, risking their lives. Why isn't Ken Griffin doing that? I just wanna say, I think it's one of the most demoral things I've ever seen. Speaker 1: I think that you're heading in the right direction now because I believe that that Speaker 0: You support the war. Go pay for it. Go fight it. Speaker 1: That complaint that the wealthy and powerful are feeding off the rest of us, I think is the one untapped reservoir of populist sentiment in this country. We have a system I Speaker 0: don't think we're allowed to say that. Speaker 1: Well, we're we have a system where the corporations, right, get to do whatever they want with the money that they make, and they get to work the system to pay as little as possible into the rest of us. They still pay more, and obviously, the taxes are paid more by the wealthy than by those who aren't wealthy, but we find ways around it, and the government then subsidizes those same corporations even though they don't take care of their own workers. And I think that how the powerful are able to leverage our government is the main fight that we need to have. So you'll have like let's say Walmart is a great and egregious example. They have more of their people on Snap as a percentage, their workers, than any other corporation. Yet, they're making a lot of money, and then what would we say? Well, they're allowed to give it to their shareholders. That's capitalism. Oh, but we, Tucker Carlson and Chris Speaker 0: Weehl subsidize. Speaker 1: Have to subsidize Speaker 0: I I for workers. Speaker 1: I think that that's the main fight. Now, obviously, it's not Ukraine, but what I'm saying is rich people imposing their will on the US government to do what they want for them is a real thing. Speaker 0: I couldn't agree more. However, I think and I agree with what you said about Walmart completely. Why should I subsidize Speaker 1: And not just Walmart. It's all of them. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. I agree. Well, it's capitalism. But I don't actually think I don't think that that's the greatest threat to our democracy or our freedoms or our country. I think the because, look, Walmart, huge you know, world's biggest retailer or was a powerful company, obviously. It's got a board of directors. It's got shareholders. It's a publicly traded company. You can buy Walmart. There's some accountability inherent in that structure. If you're someone like Ken not to beat up on poor Ken Griffin, who, you know, I don't think Ken Griffin's evil, it's just silly. But but I'll just name him again. Ken Griffin is like this independent multibillionaire who's got massive and there are a lot of these guys with massive political influence because of the money that he has, and there's no accountability at all. We can do Ken there's no board of directors of Ken Griffin. He's he's a billionaire. He is his own power center, and he's what we would call, if he were Russian, an oligarch. We put sanctions on him Speaker 1: because Yeah. That's the new word in the American vernacular, and I'm okay with it. I think it applies But Speaker 0: that's the real threat because like a guy like that I agree. Can own his own media outlets Speaker 1: I agree. Speaker 0: Own his own politicians. He can I mean, Speaker 1: it's I don't know why you're not talking about Musk in the same way? I mean, all the tech bros, which I think is a really benign and casual label for these guys, he's doing everything that we're supposed to be worried about happening in this society right now. And again, I'm not anti Elon Musk. I'm not. I think he's a genius, and I just I think that there are things that are happening right now. Speaker 0: Your question, and and I don't think it's an unfair question at all because I do think the the world that produced Elon is a is a world you need to think about. Right. I think there are some, definitely, some threats. Elon specifically will always have my love because he did the most important thing, which is restore free speech to The United States through X. And he took because, you know, free speech doesn't mean anything if you can't actually speak to an audience. Like, I I can, you know, lecture the mirror in my living room, but it doesn't mean anything. I have to be able to talk to other people in order to convince them, and there was no place to do that at scale. All the social media apps were controlled, completely controlled. And he has given a real measure of free speech back to The United States, to its citizens, which is really the difference between slavery and freedom is being able to say what you think. I mean, there there's kind of like, a free man can say what he believes is true, and a slave can't. It's that simple. So if you wanna remain free and not enslaved, then you have to have free speech, and no one else seemed to agree with that except this, like, South African guy. The South African Ironic. Rock it is it maybe it's ironic. I don't know. I mean, I'm highly opposed to immigration, but I have to say, including my best friend, a lot of the best people I know are immigrants, and they appreciate America for for what actually makes it great, which is its its core freedoms. And What Speaker 1: do you mean you're against immigration? Speaker 0: We have too much immigration, and we've made the country too No. Speaker 1: It's a difference between too much and none. Well, I'm not against immigration. Speaker 0: You just said In theory Okay. We need to shut down all immigration right now until we can retain or regain equilibrium and, like, figure out what it is that holds us all together as a nation. It's too chaotic. It's too crazy right now. No more people, period. None. Cap it right now, and then just cooling off, period. Thirty or forty years Speaker 1: Cooling off from what? Speaker 0: This is all Speaker 1: stuff that Trump has has stoked as the biggest problem we have. Speaker 0: It is the biggest problem we have, and I'll tell you exactly why, because it creates chaos and disunity. If you have a continental sized country like we do, the main question you have always every day, you're thinking about all the, how do we hold together? How do 50 states not become 50 countries? I mean, that will naturally happen. Right? Because each governor sees himself as as Caesar. So how do you keep them cohesive? And the only way to do that is short of force. You could just, like, get nukes and tell everyone to obey. But short of that, short of becoming a totalitarian country, it's by consent. It's because everybody thinks we're in this together. We're all Americans. We have this in common. And it used to be race and religion. It no longer is. Okay. So what is it? Crickets. What is it? What is it that we all have in common? And no one is even trying to answer that question. And until you can't answer that question, you are gonna move toward disunity. The drug cartels will take over, you know, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, they'll be their own thing, and, you know, England will be its own thing. And, you know, God knows what'll happen, but it'll break apart. Because that's just the nature of people, of human society. So we need a period where we can think through what it is to be an American, what unites us, what's our civic religion. It can't just be everyone's gay. That's not enough. Pride flag is not enough to hold a country together. What is it? And immigration makes it impossible because it's too much churn. Things change too fast. Like, who are these people? Speaker 1: Don't even how we've populated the country. Speaker 0: Not at this scale. We've never had immigration like this as a portion of population. We've never had it. This is and by the way, it's happening at exactly the time when technology is certain to, like, overturn our economy and employment structure. Like, AI is gonna change everything. It's too much change at once. People's brains can't handle this much change. And whoever opened the spigot and flooded a country with 15 or 25,000,000 illegals in the past four years should be in prison for the rest of his life. That's the worst thing that's ever been done to this country, and I don't I don't know if we can recover from And I think it'll become obvious as soon as there's an economic downturn that, like, the fundamentals have not been tended to at all. But when you I'm really worried about it. Speaker 1: I I look. I understand that you're worried about it, I understand why you would be. Right? But I just wanted to say It's been preached to you for years. Speaker 0: No. It's not preached to me. I noticed it. I noticed it. Speaker 1: Well, but I'm saying, look. This is How many Speaker 0: Americans want their kids to serve in the military now? Speaker 1: Very few. Speaker 0: Right. So that's a huge change. True for Speaker 1: a long time, by Speaker 0: the way. Not a long time. Speaker 1: Longer than the last four years. Speaker 0: Oh, for sure. Oh, it precedes Biden for sure, but not the last 20. Not the last 20. Speaker 1: I don't think you can look at immigration as an unprecedented bad in America. It is America. Otherwise, you don't have one. Speaker 0: Not at this scale. Not at this scale. It's too many people and Speaker 1: But even if you wanted to even if you wanted to look at the people, even if you wanna say there are 15,000,000 people who aren't supposed to be here, they all came in illegally. Okay. One, you see how easier it is to say that than to do something about it. Right? Because he was gonna come in and round them all up and now Speaker 0: It's an unsolvable problem. Speaker 1: Well, it's the question is, is it a problem or is it a challenge and it is a mixed bag? You have 7,000,000 open jobs in the country that are necessary. What does that tell you? You don't have enough people to fill them. Okay. So that means that the 15,000,000 people haven't taken everybody's jobs and Speaker 0: Why Speaker 1: are they government benefits? Saturated the market. Speaker 0: Why why are we giving government benefits to people here illegally? Speaker 1: It's a legitimate political question. Speaker 0: Now when you No. No. It's not a political question. It's like a it's a social question. It's like a core question. It's like if you want them to fill these jobs, why are you subsidizing them not to work? Speaker 1: Well, it's not that they're subsidizing not to to work. Speaker 0: Why are subsidizing them at all? Speaker 1: Because that was a political that's what I'm saying. It's a political decision. They decided to do that. You could decide not to do that. Now they don't get Social Security benefits. Very often, you'll hear Speaker 0: Well, they're young people. Speaker 1: They don't care. Have a third of and, again, these are all rough estimates because your point about tracking, we don't do this well here either. You have a third, let's say, maybe close to a half of illegal entrants working in this country whose employers pay into Social Security for them. Speaker 0: No. I know all Speaker 1: these numbers. They do not get any of the benefits of Right. Speaker 0: So we should be grateful to the No. No. No. To the Haitians. Not not Speaker 1: grateful. Right. But you gotta see it as a mixed bag. It's not they are little demons running around. Speaker 0: I see it as the greatest failure this country's ever presided over, which is the failure to encourage its own citizens to buy into the country sufficient to have kids. You have to have an economy that allows young people who aren't rich, whose parents aren't rich, to get married and have kids, and we haven't done that. And the middle class is not a minority of the of the country. It's super hard for people to get married and have kids. And so rather than fix that problem, because it would, I don't know, make Larry Fink less rich, you have to import people because, oh, we need workers. Well, what about I mean, we both grew up in a world where people had kids, and they don't know. And whose fault is that? It's our leader's fault. That's like a core fault. That's like a true sin. In my Speaker 1: always been both. Right? I'm second generation in this country, so you've always been doing both. You've been having babies, and you've been bringing in people because that's the American Never. The American opportunity. Speaker 0: Right? But what you haven't had is the birth rate just like ending for native born Americans. Ending. And then and then you have the thing I referred to earlier, which is the chaos of of change. Change produces chaos. Now, hopefully, there's, again, an equilibrium that is achieved over time. Speaker 1: But You don't think Trump made a boogeyman of illegal entrants in this country by saying they're the bad elm bras. They're all bringing the murderers. And you know that the crime rate among that population isn't the same as the native population. Speaker 0: A single crime by the illegal alien is unacceptable. Illegal immigration is unacceptable. Speaker 1: The the one too many is a very convenient standard, though. It's not we don't use that anywhere else. Speaker 0: From here. You're not American. What are you doing here? You broke laws of my country to get here Yes. And you expect me to like it and me to kiss your ass and me to give you housing vouchers and food stamps and free education for your kids. What? I didn't sign up for that. I was born here. I'm not I actually like immigrants. That's what I trying to say. Elon Musk, my my best friend and business partner, like, a million immigrants I love, but inviting people in illegally, immediately putting them on welfare when they have no relevant skills to a tech economy, which they don't, a lot of them can't read, we don't know the real names, how is that good for America? In no sense is it. It's the destruction of America, and everyone knows that. And everyone's so paralyzed by race guilt, they can't say it. But it's not about race. It's about a basic question that any country has to ask itself, which is what do I have in common with my neighbors? Why are we all in this together? I got nothing in common with our neighbors now. We don't speak the same language. So how is this a country? Like, these are not questions that racists ask. These are questions that any normal logical person would ask. Like, what is this? Speaker 1: But I Speaker 0: think That's why no one wants to fight for the country, because they're attacking people who were born here. Our wars are fought by white men from the South and the Midwest. I mean, actually fought, and that's provable. Speaker 1: That's just a fact. We have a line of minorities in the military also. You could argue We've got Speaker 0: a Speaker 1: best avenues Speaker 0: to quality. But the the every war that this country has fought so far has been disproportionately fought by those two groups, and those are exactly the groups that our leadership class hates hates. And it's constantly diversity is designed to hurt those to hurt those people. Speaker 1: But most of the leadership class are those people. Speaker 0: You're absolutely right about that. You're absolutely right about that. The war on whites is being waged by whites. That's a % true. What is that about? I'm not Sigmund Freud. I don't know. I'm just telling you that if, you know, our entire media establishment, and and not just our, like, the vibe, the law. Diversity is designed to discriminate against those people, so why they fight your wars? That's just true. And then normal people I put myself in this class for, like, I don't even know what it is that we're fighting for. More trans people or whatever. Like, what is this project about? These are all answerable questions, by the way. All is not lost. I'm just saying you need to just pause and think through the basics. I think the country is the best country in the world, totally salvageable. We can turn this around. I'm not talking about the economy. I mean, the social fabric, which is much more important than the economy, but we need to do it now and take it seriously and not just like listen to AEI and measure everything in GDP. Those people are stupid. Speaker 1: So you don't understand what it is to be American anymore? Speaker 0: Well, you tell me. Speaker 1: I think Speaker 0: We got 350,000,000 people here. What unites them? The opportunity. What opportunity? Economic opportunity? Speaker 1: Opportunity to live a life of your own making, to succeed or fail on your own merits. Speaker 0: Okay. So the meritocracy, to be judged by what you do, not what you look like. Speaker 1: That's right. Speaker 0: Okay. So every institution in American life, almost without any exception at all, has abandoned that standard and now has something called DEI or diversity hiring Speaker 1: Not anymore. Back. You just had an administration strip it all out. Speaker 0: They they all do. Still in place. I mean, they're fighting it, but where were you when every institution decided to hire on the basis of sex and race, which is the opposite of the standard you're Speaker 1: describing? Why did they do that? Speaker 0: That's a really interesting I mean, from my perspective Yes. It's an attempt to destroy the West. And because that I mean, what is the you said it yourself. What is America? You said it's a place where you can rise or fall on your own merits, and that's the one thing that's been destroyed. So I actually agree with you, but we don't have that anymore. Speaker 1: And when we're destroyed? Was it destroyed when women were given the vote or when minorities were given the vote? Speaker 0: Of course not. Speaker 1: Okay. Because there had been a system that was limiting. Speaker 0: But women were given the vote in 1919, and minorities were given well, minorities had the vote in a lot of places, some they didn't, but the civil rights act was 1965. So so it's been sixty years. Speaker 1: So the point is, look, I get that I get what the frustration with DEI was. I understand No. Speaker 0: No. It's not the frustration. It's that it gets to the fundamental question of what is it I asked you, what's an American? You said, you don't want it to be an American. I said, I really don't. I want to, and I think we need to figure that out. And you said, I know what it is. It's anyone who comes here can rise or fall on his own merits. And I said, where were you when that was destroyed? It's totally destroyed. I don't believe it was being bad. White rage. Thank you, Mark Milley. It's about the principle that undergirds the whole country. It's it's what it is to be American, and they took it away, and no one said anything about it. And anyone who did it was called a racist. Speaker 1: No. It's no. Listen. I I get the cancel culture concerns and Speaker 0: It's not cancel culture. It's like fundamental, dude. What since we don't have No. Speaker 1: I'm saying being called racist for saying what you just said is a function of cancel culture and Speaker 0: it's unfair. Who cares about that? Speaker 1: But what I'm saying is this, you didn't have minorities being given the opportunities because they were minorities. That was something that America wanted to correct because it is the opposite of equality. Okay. And it was the same with women, And that's what you should be trying to do. No. Not to the exclusion of anyone else, not to the exclusion of merit, but you don't want people held back because of who are what they Either Speaker 0: people, as you said I'm I'm just quoting you, my oracle. Speaker 1: Thank Speaker 0: you. That what it is to be an American is to participate in a system that judge judges you in the basis of what you do Yes. Speaker 1: Rather than Speaker 0: who you are, where you came from, what your parents did, what they look like. Speaker 1: Land of opportunity. Speaker 0: Land of opportunity. And I press, what does that mean? And you you said what I just said. And so every institution in American life to this day, the meaningful ones, the universities, the large corporations, the federal government, to this day has abandoned that and moved aggressively direction. There are federal set asides, the ladders of success, the merit badges that we require to enter these institutions, mostly in education, totally determined by race and sex. And that's the opposite of what you said. So then, and that's been going on for sixty years, so okay. So clearly, it's not the land of opportunity. What is it? Speaker 1: No. I believe Is it Speaker 0: a giant pinata party where the most aggressive person gets the biggest pile? So Larry Fink is the richest guy because he elbowed people in the face the hardest. I mean, that's kind of what it is actually. Speaker 1: There is a little bit of who and how the system gets worked, but I would disagree that it has been destroyed. I would disagree that because you still have whites in dominant positions everywhere that you can measure. Speaker 0: Not about whites. It's about people. It's about human beings. Are you gonna judge the person on the content of his character, the color of his skin? Speaker 1: But you weren't judging them on the content of your character, and when you No. Speaker 0: It's hard to Speaker 1: know you if you look at corporate studies of Corporate studies. Diversity does to them, it increases productivity, increases Speaker 0: You're talking about McKinsey study from 02/2018, which has been it's a joke. It's a joke. It's been utterly debunked, and they were selling their diversity consultants. Speaker 1: I'm not referring to that study, but I remember what you're talking Speaker 0: about. Shows hiring people on the basis of skin color makes a company more Speaker 1: basis of skin color is that you remove the restriction Speaker 0: There are no restrictions on Speaker 1: your you won't hire them as often because of this skin color. Speaker 0: Color then okay. I have a simple solution for this. It's called standardized testing, and it was created in order to solve the problem that you described, which is bias. And so standardized testing was a good faith effort by the WASPs, by the way, who ran the big American universities to be fair. They're trying to be fair. It's like, okay, let's just pick people on the basis of their intelligence, their aptitude. It's an aptitude test. Right. And that kinda worked, actually. It it elevated not just WASPs, but, you know, Jews and Catholics and black people and everybody was judged on the basis, and it was imperfect, of course, but basically it worked. And it's why America dominated the world, because it had the smartest people in positions of power. And then at the apogee, the top, we abandoned it, and we're like, oh, this isn't working. What do you mean it's not working? It's totally working. It's working because then we get the cream of all the other countries. The smartest people around the world move here, including some of my friends. The best. And then we abandoned it, and we're like, well, that's unfair. How is it unfair? It's the definition of fairness. You're judging someone without even knowing what he looks like or his sex on the basis of his performance. How is that unfair? They never explained. They just took it away. And now it's gone. And now in federal contracting, if you're a woman owned business, why do I have an interest in a woman owned business? I don't care who owns the business. I was Speaker 1: gonna get good business. You're ignoring the impact of the Trump administration, which has been Well, it's been Speaker 0: six weeks. Speaker 1: I know, but I'm saying they you strip it out, you'll see what happens. I don't think diversity is our problem. And standardized testing, I don't have a problem. Saying you did. I'm stating it as a proposition. What I'm saying is that the the testing assumes equal starting points. If you and I are both gonna take a standardized test right now in an area that I am prepared for and you're not, then we're not gonna do the same. Speaker 0: Well, go ahead and prepare for it then. I mean, I don't know what to say. What's a better way to do it? Speaker 1: The point well, I'm not saying there's a better way. I'm saying that I don't have a problem with standardized testing. I don't have a problem with SATs and people having to use them to get into educational institutions. I don't have any problem with it. I'm saying that you also have to be open to the reality that the kids aren't gonna do the same on the test when one has had a good education and one Speaker 0: has not had a good There's lot of science behind that, and and the truth is darker and harder to deal with, okay, which is that intelligence is the product of environment to some extent, but it's mostly genetic. And intelligence is a lot of factors in success, but intelligence is the single most important over time in big populations. Smarter populations do better. They make more money. They go to jail less often. They stay married. Singapore is a more successful society than The United States for this reason. Okay? So that's the truth. If you have a meritocratic society, the smartest people will have most of the money and most of the success. And that doesn't seem fair to people, is the truth, actually. And as we got better at sorting the smart people and sending them to Harvard and McKinsey and, you know, on to private equity, it became more obvious. No, it's true though. It became obvious that the meritocracy was producing an incredibly lopsided society, and that freaked people out, and it felt unfair to them. And two people in the early nineteen nineties wrote a book on it, Dick Kernstein and and Murray, and it was called The Bell Curve, and it had a chapter on race in it, which was, you know, made a lot of people mad. They could have taken that chapter out, and it would have been, I think, the transformative book ever because it described what I just said, which is the meritocracy produces an outcome that you may not be ready for, actually, because it's rooted in nature, and you can't change it. And Head Start, which was designed to increase the IQ of poor kids, didn't work, and no one even wants to talk about it anymore. It's really hard to change people's intelligence, and intelligence turns out to be the main predictor of economic success. So these are super complicated questions, but I know that a system that rewards people on the basis of race and punishes others on the basis of race creates hatred and division. Speaker 1: I don't think the point is I don't think you have to do it that way is what I'm saying, And I understand Speaker 0: I can't get into college. If if two people apply to college and they're different colors, and the one with the lower SAT score is admitted because of his race, that's penalizing Speaker 1: the I understand, which is why it's no longer the law of the country. Speaker 0: It's true in every college in The United States, as you know, especially the selective ones, including the one you went to. Speaker 1: But they changed the law. Speaker 0: They they lie, and the Harvard case showed that. You can say they did this with the UC system in California, which was once a great system when I grew up in that state, and it's now a joke, because of this. But they basically found out that they were just like, we have too many Asians. We can't have too many Asians. Speaker 1: That's exactly right. Yeah. The what was interesting to me about the case is that it wasn't white people. It was Asian people who were saying that they were being discriminated Speaker 0: basically, way they shut down the conversation is by making everyone feel guilty about slavery, which no living person had anything to do with at all and no living person I've ever met supports. I couldn't be more opposed to it. That's why I'm for free speech because I'm against slavery. Speaker 1: But do but look. It's also it's not a coincidence that people of color, specifically African American, are at a different socioeconomic level given how they were introduced to the country. Right? Because race is completely fabricated. There is no such thing as race. We made it up. Don't even know what you're talking about. You cut open a black guy and a white guy, their genetics are the same. That's okay. We made race. Speaker 0: I don't Speaker 1: know what you're We made race. We made it. We made it a thing. Just because you look different doesn't mean you're different species. So we created it. Hold on. Speaker 0: No one's saying anyone's a different species. Speaker 1: I'm not saying that you are. I'm saying that I think we Speaker 0: may be getting into science still too deep. Speaker 1: No. I'm saying the science is very simple. She created race. And Wait. Speaker 0: Hold on. Wait. I don't know what you're talking about. So you're saying that there's no there are no differences between the races? So you for example, the genetic predisposition to certain diseases is fake? There are cultural. There are ethnic How was that cultural? Speaker 1: There are ethnic pockets. Right? So Italians have certain things that are more common because of that group of animals breeding with each other than you'll have with Irish people or with Polish people. Sure. Sure. And then as they Oh, Speaker 0: so you acknowledge genetics is real. Speaker 1: Of course genetics is real. Genetics is everything. What I'm saying is that race. Woah. What I'm saying is Speaker 0: race is everything, but race is everything. Speaker 1: Race is race is a social construct. Mhmm. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, race is a social construct in some ways. Yeah. But there's no doubt that there are significant no. Speaker 1: I don't I mean Look. For example Irish and Italians are different cultures. Right? But they're the same people. They're just different cultures. Speak different ways, eat different Speaker 0: same people. They don't look the same, and they're not genetically the same. That's not true. Speaker 1: They are genetically the same. Speaker 0: Well, that's untrue. It's factually untrue, and you can see it in all kinds of ways. What's what's the percentage of redheads in Sicily? Pretty high? Speaker 1: I doubt it. Okay. Speaker 0: So what you're saying is Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean it's genetics. It's just where people decide to be. No. Hair color Speaker 0: is determined by genetics. It's not a cultural concept. Speaker 1: I know, but I'm saying that having Speaker 0: And neither is height or eye color or IQ. Sorry. More Speaker 1: redheads in Italy is not just about genetics. It's about where people populate. Right? Like, you could you could take oh, you like look at look at Sicily. Right? Look at the history of Sicily. When North Africa winds up being there, right, and in power, you wind up having that mixed into the chemistry of everybody who's Sicilian. Speaker 0: Because genetics are real. That's exactly race Speaker 1: as a thing we created. Okay. I'm not Speaker 0: exactly sure I understand the distinctions that you're drawing. I'm just saying that different people, different groups of people, and different individuals have different genetic makeups, and they're not wildly different. We're all members of the same species. We are all created by God. As a Christian, I believe that. But we didn't have these problems when people were Christian because the underlying assumption was that God created everyone, everyone has a soul. It's only when this became a secular society that hates God that you could treat people like animals and objects. Speaker 1: Well, slavery was during a time where it was a pretty Speaker 0: heavy It's nothing compared to AI and transhumanism. Nothing. Speaker 1: Nothing. How so? Speaker 0: Well, because slavery, you know, evil though it is, it still exists, by the way, around the world, but it's evil, and Christians got rid of it. No one no other group did. Christians got rid of that because they thought it was evil because they thought God created each person. But even under most certainly in The certainly in The United States, even under slavery here, evil as it was, slaves were still considered human. They didn't possess the same rights, but AI and transhumanism, transhumanism specifically, seeks to redefine what a human being is. When you merge people with machines, then you don't acknowledge the existence of a soul. How could if if you believe that each person has a distinct soul, that God cares about each person, like a speck of sand on the beach, each person is accounted for and watched over by God and cared for by God and has a has a destiny, how could you merge that person with a computer? Because once you do that, then you don't have to acknowledge the soul, then you can treat that person like the object that you've made him into. And, of course, we don't even discuss this book ever. The point is look, my only point is, this is a super complicated topic as I think we're proving, and there are always unintended consequences of any system that you set up. But I know from just watching the world and watching The United States that the second you make race a key or appearance, whatever you wanna call it, genetics, a key component in awarding or punishing, then you make everybody hate each other and you wind up like Rwanda. Speaker 1: Don't wanna create differences. You wanna create similarities. Speaker 0: Well, there are differences, but you wanna find commonalities. Speaker 1: Yes. And I think that, look, that's what that's what the land of opportunity is all about. Speaker 0: Treat people as individuals. Why do I give a shit if someone's a woman or black? I care about that person, him or her. Are you a good person? Do you do a good job? I care about you. Yes. I don't care about all your ancestors. People look like you. This whole phrase this the the this term that used community is totally fake. There's no black community or white community or gay community. They're only people. No woman ever gave birth to a community. That's not a thing. God doesn't care what he cares about people Speaker 1: in community. A social construct. Speaker 0: No. But it's a way for politicians to dehumanize people, actually. I hate it. Speaker 1: Or fragment people. Speaker 0: But to treat them as less than human. You're not a you're not Chris Cuomo. You're part of the Italian community. You're part of the buff 50 year old community. You're part of the former talk show host community or whatever. Like, that makes you less than who you are. Now your name is Chris Cuomo. You have a soul. God knew you before you were born. You have a destiny after you die. Like, possibly a community Speaker 1: fuck you. I get I get all the metaphysical aspects of it. What I'm Speaker 0: saying It's the core Speaker 1: of it. But but what I'm saying is when you discover that women aren't given the opportunities because they're women or blacks aren't given opportunities because they're black, in America, that's something that we see as corrective, that you you want to address that. Speaker 0: Has made the problem worse. We saw Leech's as corrective too. We saw radium theory as corrective too. Like, just because you claim it's medicine doesn't mean it's not poison, and this has been poisoned, and this has poisoned our country. It's made everyone way more race conscious. We're roughly the same age. People are not half as race conscious when we were kids as they are now. They weren't half as angry about race as they are now, and that's a byproduct of the system that was supposed to make things better. It made it much worse. Speaker 1: And our politics. I mean, look. The Trump administration, which I think is a very interesting aspect about our conversation. Think about it. You and I have sat together, I don't know how long, if it goes goes past like that, but we haven't even talked about anything in the news. Really. I mean, we're talking Speaker 0: deeper questions Speaker 1: for you Chris Quoll. And I love it, but I'm saying that's the beauty that's the beauty. Right? That's the beauty of the forum, of the freedom, of what we're able to do here, which you would never be able to do just by time, let alone by subject inclination. We are very divided, and we are divided in ways that I haven't experienced before. Speaker 0: I agree. Speaker 1: And I think that a big part of it is that it works. It's working for people who want power and to keep power. Division sells these days. It is and maybe it always has, and that's why we know what a demagogue is, but there's no positive opposite term that the Greeks gave us. It's easy to play on people's outrage. But when I see the Trump administration, he came in fomenting division. And I thought it was a very tricky sell for him because if he if what I hear about him is true, which is he wanted to win again because of legacy mode and be remembered is great, you can't be great as a divider. There's no American figure in our history who is great because they were a divider. Speaker 0: Every American leader has been a divider. Every leader is a divider by definition. Us versus them, the enemy versus the homeland. You know, the first president of The United States drove the loyalists to Nova Scotia, some of them were my relatives, so I know that. So you will divide. The question is on what basis? And the thing that I worry most about in a country this diverse is racial division, because it doesn't go away, and those wounds just remain forever, or certainly for generations, we've seen that with slavery, which I do think has left scars. I would not deny that, it's clearly real. So anybody who foments racial division is is committing a graver sin than average. And to see Trump get the support of a multiracial coalition, which he did, is the most hopeful thing ever. And so if in the end it becomes Trump against the people who've wrecked our country in the permanent bureaucracies, I'm you know, I think that's pretty good outcome. Speaker 1: When you see what he's doing right now, you don't see him as as trying to break things in order fix There's question. Speaker 0: There's no question. And I I think you make a fair point. And and in general, I am on the side of builders over destroyers because I think it's much easier that know, I hate vandalism, and just on a gut level, I hate it. I believe in building and improving. But I do think in this case, and I think it's tough, and I think it's a tough balance. You know, you can get into a frenzy of destruction where you just break things because they're there. Speaker 1: Like, I can't think of anything that the administration is telling us is good and works in our society. Speaker 0: Well, let me put it this way. I've watched vandalism in the last really since Memorial Day twenty twenty when the George Floyd riots began. I've watched vandalism on a scale I never thought I would ever see in this country, not just physical vandalism, but vandalism of our our cherished institutions, whether it's the Episcopal Church that I grew up in, the Saint George's School, the high school I went to, which I love, totally destroyed by this. Speaker 1: Got any juice with that school, by the way? Speaker 0: Yeah. They won't let me on campus. Speaker 1: They won't? No. Shoot. My daughter just applied. Speaker 0: Oh, it's a beautiful school. I met my wife there, and there's a lot of bodies that my children have. Speaker 1: Does she have any juice there? Speaker 0: I don't know. She's married to me. Speaker 1: I'm not gonna won't use this. Speaker 0: Can I Speaker 1: But I'm definitely asking you about Speaker 0: it after? Story. This is like my favorite. So they some a guy who I really like, who was a member of our in our class there called my wife, maybe my wife is hilarious, about five or six years ago, and it's like, you were raising money for this new tennis center, and she was captain of the tennis team. I played tennis, mostly smoked cigarettes, but hacked around on the court. And in the eighties, and like, we're trying to raise this tennis money for tennis. She's like, how much how much are trying to raise? It's like, it's $11,000,000, or something like that. My wife's like, you know, I I feel for you. I've been in this position raising money for a school. You have to call these people. I love the school. I met my husband there. We're married there, and my dad was headmaster. You know, we love the school. I'll just pay the whole thing. Just you don't have to call anybody else. We'll we'll cover the whole the whole the whole amount. He's like, really? And she was like, just have one request that you name it the Tucker Carlson Tennis Center. And the guy's like, Let me check it out. I was like, oh oh, so you're not you're not gonna do that? And he's like, he's such a nice guy. Super uncomfortable. He knew that if he went back to the school and said, we paid for the whole tennis center with one donation. Yeah. No. They turned it down. Speaker 1: Not that we're gonna Speaker 0: give $11,000,000 for a 10 I don't even have $11,000,000, but if I did, I I wouldn't give it to a tennis center and a boarding school. But isn't that funny? So that's how they feel about me. Speaker 1: And you are able to laugh at it because? Because I'm happy. I've had Speaker 0: a really happy life and we have a really close family and Speaker 1: You also don't respect the basis of their rejection. Of course not. Speaker 0: And I know I know what my Speaker 1: sins That's the key. Speaker 0: I know what my sins are and I've committed a lot of them and I Who hasn't? I'm ashamed of myself in a lot of ways, but Who isn't? I'm not ashamed of of anything I've done there, you know, at all. Speaker 1: But I'm saying, like, who who isn't? Speaker 0: Because this is why I think it's important. Oh, I think you should be. I think you should definitely be ashamed of what you've done wrong, and I am. But I also think that you should know what you did wrong and be ashamed for the things that are wrong and not ashamed for the things that aren't wrong. Speaker 1: You shouldn't just be ashamed because of how people see you or how decide to judge Speaker 0: you. Exactly. Speaker 1: I agree. And I also look. I also agree that we're seeing things that we haven't seen in ways. Some of it is because we have reach, right, because we have so much more media now and ability for things to be seen technologically. But we also do have a growing level of acceptance of destructive and negative ideas. Look, what what bothered me and but my big boogeyman is, God forbid, there was another nine eleven. Would we come together? I wanna say yes. I don't know. Certainly, I know how president Trump would handle it, and it would not be the way president Bush Speaker 0: a lot of foreign conflicts into this country. I just wanna say that. Meaning? Meaning that one of the byproducts of immigration is people bring their ancient resentments with them, and that should not be allowed. Period. Like, you want to come to our country for the opportunity, for the freedom, great. But you cannot, once you arrive, use the things that you're mad about in your home country to influence my foreign policy. My family's been here a long time. That's not allowed. It's not your country, actually. You're we're welcoming you, but you can't bring your ancient hatreds with you. And and a lot of different groups have, and it affects our foreign policy. I really resent it. It's my money, my children's lives on the line, and my country. So, you know, a normal country doesn't allow that. They had a protest of Bangladeshi workers in The UAE earlier this year, and they weren't mad at the government of UAE. They were mad at some issue back in Bangladesh, and they marched down the street, and the government of UAE deported them that night. Not because they're mad at them, but, like, we don't import foreign conflicts into our country because it's not these aren't our problems. Speaker 1: And yet and yet, here's a counterfactual. What do we see happening in Europe right now that isn't happening here? Them having huge numbers of Muslims from different ethnic extracts in that part of the globe coming into societies, not assimilating. Speaker 0: I agree. Speaker 1: That's certainly what the French are dealing with and what The UK is dealing with to a little bit of a lesser extent. In America, that hasn't happened. Yes, we're farther away, but hasn't happened. Muslims come into this country, so one of two countries on the face of the planet that have more Jews than Muslims, probably won't stay that way, but when they come into this country, they assimilate, And we don't do what the French allowed, which is to have them all living together and separate from the rest of the society. America is about assimilating. Speaker 0: Been true. I would the only things having spent a lot of time in Europe, would say that, one, I think it's unfair to blame it's like everyone blames the European populations, like, you know, your Algerians are killing people with machetes on the street because you're a racist. That's not fair. It's their country. They're the indigenous population. This was imposed on them by their leaders. Don't blame them. A. B, Europe is just way smaller. It's way smaller. And so The United States is so big that I've spent my whole life here. There are a lot of parts of the country. I don't know what's going on there. And I travel a lot in this country, and I go to places, I'm like, what is this? It bears no resemblance to what I thought was here. Totally different. Go to Portland, Maine. It doesn't look anything like the Portland, Maine you remember, and there's no evidence people are are assimilating at all. You go to Lewiston, Maine. They imported all these Somalis there thirty years ago. They've never assimilated at all at all in any way. They're just kind of taking over downtown Lewiston. It's a it's a slum. It's dangerous, and there's no assimilation whatsoever. No English is spoken. And so, you know, I think the lessons of Europe The United States, think, did a really good job of assimilating immigrants, your grandparents, you know, when the great Southern European wave of immigration came at the turn of the last century, and and they really, like, self conscious. Like, all public schools, like, taught civics and, like Mhmm. This is what it is to be American. Learn English. Like, did your did your parents even speak Italian? Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Oh, they did. But but what what did my grandparents want? Be American. Exactly. No. But that's exactly right. But Speak the language. Be American. They were discouraged from speaking Italian except in the house because my my grandparents didn't speak Speaker 0: English. Exactly. Right. And that, I think, was the rule. Mhmm. And, you know, whatever the language was. So that's no longer true, because we're not when we make any effort to make people American because we can't define what American is, and we need to do that now, and just require that everyone who lives here buys into the same some species of the same program. I don't think we should be North Korea about it, but we need to have a unifying idea, or else we will break apart. Speaker 1: Do you believe directionally this administration is going the right way? Speaker 0: Well, I think they've identified some things that are really wrong, and in the first six weeks have made way more progress than I ever would have thought of fighting those things. So but, I mean, we have we have some very, very serious problems, and will they are they equal to that? If anyone is, are. I they've amazed me in the first six weeks, but, you know, there's a lot coming. There could be an economic reset, probably likely will. I mean, these are cyclical to some extent. And and then there's also the technology question. There's the AI question. And I just don't understand what you're gonna do with 15,000,000 new unskilled workers in a society that doesn't need workers, and I'm really worried about that. I don't know who thought of that. Like, on the on the cusp of the AI revolution, let's open the borders to Haiti. Like, what what are you doing? That's like the greatest crime that's ever been committed against this country. And I I hope I'm wrong. I mean, I'm often wrong, so I hope I'm wrong. I really hope I'm wrong here. That seems like suicidal to me. Speaker 1: I think it is I think that the biggest question and look, I don't have the answer. But the biggest question is how to unify? How to take your fingers and make them into Speaker 0: a fist? Yes. Speaker 1: What what worried me look. What was I got married two months after nine eleven. I got engaged eleven days after nine eleven because of nine eleven because I realized the preciousness of life, and I thought that was gonna happen all the time. I thought it was the new normal, that they were just gonna be blowing shit up all the I thought that too. My wife made the one bad decision that she's made since I've her, which is she agreed to marry me. And Was it a tough sell? Oh, yeah. If it hadn't been 09:11, she would have never said yes. She probably You leveraged a terror attack to win her. Could get out of it now on the basis of impossibility contract because of the risk. So when I saw like, for me, like, even like a a January 6 to me was we don't all come down on the side of what is right and wrong collectively anymore. You know, that when George Floyd happened, people going down the streets and protest, they're gonna be angry, they're gonna say angry things, you know, it's not gonna be peaceful in terms of speech. Okay. Destroying buildings and that's okay, taking over cities and that's okay, not okay. We should have all felt that way. We always had until that point. No. Fair. January 6, the the the you don't do that. You don't go busted into the capital. Everybody should have been on the same page. Instead, it was, well, what about George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter stuff? That type of discontinuity is very unsettling to me. We all know what's right and wrong on very gross levels. Okay? And when you ignore those things for advantage, you start getting into a dangerous situation. Speaker 0: I don't know that we do. I mean, one of my core beliefs is that we shouldn't kill kids. Totally opposed to abortion. I think it's like the most obviously evil thing we've ever done. And I I know a lot of really nice people I like a lot who totally disagree with me. And I don't know why they do, but they do. And that's like a core. I mean, abortion is not just like some boutique even I'm not an evangelical, by the way, for the record, but I just have always thought, like, what? You can't do that. I'm sorry. I don't care how inconveniences this baby. You can't fucking kill babies. But most people I know in my affluent world totally disagree. So I think and that and I just would say that's like a core disagreement. So I think I think there are a lot of deep disagreements, like real disagreements that have, you know, preexisting and maybe haven't surfaced. Speaker 1: Right. But here's the difference. And in terms of what it is to be America, what is our national religion? Yeah. Exactly. The law. The law is our natural religion. Religion is a set of rules. Right? You have faith. You have faith, I have faith, I choose to have faith. Can't prove that there's a basis of my faith, but I choose it. Religion is a set of rules. Our set of rules is the law. That's what unites you in this country. That's why it's so important. That's why politicians love to fuck with it as much as they do because they know it's the essential fabric, is that you have fairness under law. So abortion, reproductive rights, however you want to term it. You can feel however you want to feel about it. I can feel however I wanna feel about it. Then we have the law. Right now, the law is you decide state by state. Okay? It is the first reversal of a right in our lifetime where a right had been recognized and then removed. That was very politically destabilizing. I thought turned out not to be in the election. Turned out it wasn't the midterms. It's not Speaker 0: the first mean, We we had the Volstead Act. Speaker 1: No. But this is where there was Speaker 0: You had a right to drink, and then you couldn't, and then you could No. That's a privilege. We had a right to run for more than two terms as president. Speaker 1: That, again, is not a natural right. Speaker 0: It was. It was in the constitution. There was no you had a right Speaker 1: to run for president. That but that is that is different than because Speaker 0: it doesn't have an organized, screechy, unhappy lady. Speaker 1: No. No. No. How many terms you have as president Speaker 0: is guaranteed on the constitution. Speaker 1: You can Speaker 0: run for president. Speaker 1: Is not you can amend the constitution. Speaker 0: Well, that's I'm Speaker 1: saying. The constitution. Speaker 0: Make all kinds of changes. We consider some things rights, and then we decide they're not rights. I mean, there's no there's no natural law that would support abortion. Of course not. That's insane. Speaker 1: You can't No. The natural law would be control over your own body. No. Speaker 0: The natural law would be a person has a right to be alive. That supersedes your control of your own But Speaker 1: when is it a person has rights attached to it? Speaker 0: Well, you can well, we'll just start with when the child can live outside the womb. There's no debate there. Speaker 1: That that is not the line that was drawn even in Roe v Wade. Speaker 0: They I'm I'm just saying there are plenty of states that happened Speaker 1: That is a more generous assessment to people who believe in reproductive rights than the law had been on Roe Speaker 0: v Wade. Kids are aborted every year post viability. It's just a fact. And they say, well, the child you know, there's lots of reasons for it, but the so, I mean Speaker 1: Late term abortions are almost not a thing. They happen incredibly infrequently. Speaker 0: Almost not a thing. No. But I'm saying Speaker 1: that statistically, the idea that we had to focus on late term abortion I don't know. Was pure politics. Speaker 0: Rape on practical platforms is almost not a thing, but I'm concerned about it. I don't want it because it's wrong. And anytime a child who can live outside the womb is murdered, like, I'm upset about it, and I don't care how often it happens. It happens one time. If it even could happen, I'm opposed to it. It's a baby. Speaker 1: It wasn't part of the law. Speaker 0: Okay. But I'm just saying it happens. Speaker 1: But the viability standard The Speaker 0: good Mocker Institute takes care of the numbers, and you can look it up. So, anyway, I'm just saying, like, the okay. It's a right no. These are political institutions that respond to the public will or what they think it is. Speaker 1: But what about human rights? What about natural rights that are bestowed by God that aren't supposed to be infringed on by men? Isn't one of those the control and sanctity of your own body? Speaker 0: I don't think that's I mean, I'm not the I'm I'm not the Yale Law School graduate here, but I I'm not. I I would Speaker 1: They don't teach you about God given rights in law school because Speaker 0: That's our founding document is God Speaker 1: given it is that's a not a secular that's not a secular understanding. Speaker 0: It says that in the document. Speaker 1: The constitution does not mention God. The declaration of independence does. Oh, sure. But that's not our operative document. The constitution is. And our constitution does not mention God. Nothing is predicated on God except to have separation of church and state. We don't What so how are the Speaker 0: rights in the bill of rights, how are the rights Articulated. Explained. Speaker 1: As as a function of the collection, especially the bill of rights, which you just referred to. Because they sent it out to the states, and the states came back with Speaker 0: the recommendation. But, like okay. Speaker 1: We say they're god given, but the problem with that is you live in a secular society. So what if somebody doesn't believe in god? Do they not have rights? Of course they do. Of course they do. They're attached by the collective. Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, the yeah. The First Amendment says that, you know, the government can't have religious tests. So but I guess that you could just whatever. It's rabbit hole, but I think we can just, like, stick with the Bill of Rights and just we could start there Yeah. And say that, you know, those are the rights that our government exists to protect, right, wherever they emanate from. And the first one is the freedom of speech. And when you see the entire leadership class of the country opposing the first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, then, you know, the whole project is bullshit, and the people running it don't believe in it, and you set the stage for a revolution, which is really scary. Speaker 1: Here's my problem with it. I am totally with you about having to tolerate the things that you don't like and you don't wanna listen to in a democracy. %. Marketplace of ideas. %. And I would even argue that it is better to have more ideas that are offensive because it makes it easier for the better ideas to rise to the top. I honestly believe that. I'm very worried about any kind of concerted effort to limit speech, %. Here's what I'm struggling with. Our jurisprudence has moved in the opposite direction as our culture. Our culture has been getting a little bit more finicky with what it likes people talking about. Speaker 0: Right? Speaker 1: That's cancel culture, censorious. The law has been expanding. Right? When you look back at Chplinski in the nineteen twenties, '19 forties jurisprudence, they used to say at the supreme court level, you know, the first amendment wasn't created for Tucker Carlson to figure out how to say the meanest shit he can to Chris Cuomo and be protected from it. And then you had fighting words doctrine, which is, hey, Tucker Carlson can't walk up to Chris Cuomo and say something about his mom and expect not to get a punch in the nose, and then they expanded it even more. And then he said, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater. Yeah. You probably can under the supreme court law. There's a new test of whether it's reasonably conceived to create violence. So they kept expanding the rights. So the first amendment jurisprudentially from the Supreme Court has been getting broader and broader, and I wonder if it has come with a culture cost. And I don't like to look at Mike Tyson as any kind of philosophical basis, but he said once, social media has made people forget that sometimes what comes out of your mouth is gonna get you punched in the face. Speaker 0: That's right. Speaker 1: And I do wonder these days, maybe it's the angry old man and me coming out, but do you think we've gone too far in allowing things to be okay to be said, not as political thought, but as invective, as insults, and how people are allowed to treat each other now. And if I do anything about it, if you do anything about it, you're the one in trouble. Speaker 0: I would say there I would just make two Speaker 1: Slippery slope. I know. But I struggle. Speaker 0: No. Not slippery at all. There are two obvious points to make. One is that if you live in a society where you're not allowed to criticize the people in charge, you live in a tyranny Yes. Speaker 1: As in Ukraine. Agreed. Not about Ukraine, but I agree with Speaker 0: the principle. Murdered Gonzalo Lira for criticizing the government. So yeah. And we have done that here, and I'm I'm opposed to so that's like a super easy test. If you are not allowed to criticize the people who have more power than you do, you're not living in a free country. Speaker 1: I still think it's weird that you look at Ukraine and not Russia for the immediate example. Speaker 0: I'm not I'm not funding Russia, and my tax dollars are funding Ukraine. So that's kind of why I have a special interest. Any country that we fund, we have a right to look carefully at where our money's going. No no issue with that. Any country. Okay. So I would say that. And the second point is, of course, I think the public discourse is completely out of control. I think pornography is disgusting, and I think the cruelty that I see all the time is shocking to me and really sad, and I hate it. And there's clearly, like, some deep rage going on inside people. I think I understand where it comes from, but I'm totally opposed to it. Do you do about it? Well, I all I can say for myself is I try not to add to it. I certainly have added to it, you know, sometimes, and I'm sorry about that. I really try not to now. Probably should start a little earlier, but but I I still do. But anyway, I I don't know what you do Speaker 1: about it. I don't know what to do. Speaker 0: Just try and, you know, model reasonable, decent the last thing I'll say, I think it's the most important thing when you're talking to another person to remember that it's a person you're talking to. Speaker 1: I saw something happen. People are gonna get angry at me about this. But by the way, I think that as much as this is remarkable for people, I don't care about why people are interested in you and I talking to each other. I know it's part of the solution, and it doesn't matter. People can listen to this and think everything that we both just said is completely a waste of the time that they spent watching it. I'm okay with that. I still know that it's part of it because one, when we were working at two different places, we would have never been allowed to do this. Yes. And part of being in those places would be adversarial with each other, and you were much better at that than I was, by the way. Speaker 0: But I'm truly an asshole deep down. Speaker 1: It's not that deep. But what I'm saying is I know that we're not supposed to be doing this, and we're some of the only ones who do. Yes. And I appreciate you and respect you for that. I'm hanging out at a place that I'd love to go to during the summertime, and there are MAGA hats all over the place. A guy in the MAGA hat is a little drunk, little adept, and gets into it with somebody who does not have a MAGA hat on. And eventually, the guy without the MAGA hat on smacks the MAGA hat off the guy's head. The guy gets angry, punches the guy who smacked it off his head. Cops come. Arrest the MAGA hat guy because he punched the other guy in the face, and there were all these other people there. And I was going to talk about it on the show and didn't because I realized that what I was gonna say was not embracing of the law, but to me felt like what would have been right in the situation. And I have never really figured this out. I could read a hundred I could give you a hundred different arguments of what's right and what's wrong, but how I feel is when the guy smacked the hat off the head of the other guy, it seemed to me that it was not more wrong than the guy punching him. You know, it didn't seem like he had high ground. You smacked the hat off the guy's head. Before that, it had been this, and there was plenty ugliness going back and forth. He then smacks the head off. The guy punches him. He didn't hit him with a two by four, but he punched him. He opened him up. He was bleeding. And everyone I would talk to about it would say, well, come on, Chris. I mean, you can't do that. Why? Because it's the law. Okay. Why is it the law? Because we want to enforce civilization, but we're not that civilized. Speaker 0: I get it. Speaker 1: We give ourselves too much credit for civility, especially in America. Everything we embrace is violent and aggressive. Why does everybody like The Rock? Because he's a great actor? No. It's that symbology of what he represents as a male. And I I know that it's wrong, but I feel like you can't be punching everybody in the face that you disagree with. I know. Of course. But it's now like we empower people to be their absolute worst all the time, and they gain advantage of it. People say things they're not just criticizing you. They don't just criticize you. Speaker 0: Oh, I know. Speaker 1: They say horrible things about people, their families, whatever it is. And I don't know how that's making us any better. Is that just what we have to tolerate to be in a democracy or have we fucked it up? I Speaker 0: it's pretty clear. I mean, I of course, I know exactly what you're saying, I agree with you, and I think that none of that is an excuse for the people in power to shut down criticism of themselves, as has happened in Europe and Australia. Hope it doesn't happen here. On the other hand, I do think, you know, if you don't think of other people as human, you can there's no limit to what you can do to them. And I do think that's, like, the key thing to remember is these are people, They have identical value in the eyes of God that you do, and you should always remember that no matter how pissed you are at them. And, no, you can't kill them. Speaker 1: No. No. No. Of course. But I'm saying that I don't know, man. I just feel like we're getting less civilized even though the law is Hispanic. Speaker 0: Can I say one last thing? Speaker 1: Go ahead. Speaker 0: Yeah. The thank the Internet for that. I am thrilled that you're enjoying yourself outside of the confines of the business we're both in. And even if I disagree with you on certain things, I just think it's it's it's inspirational to see a free man. So Speaker 1: I appreciate you. I like coming down to see you, and I think that the point is as simple as that, Tucker. We're not gonna agree on everything. Okay? Speaker 0: But do because there's not one Sicilian man in America who doesn't love Trump. There's not one, and I don't believe you're that man. They're saying I've done a survey of every Sicilian man in American, every Sicilian man in America in his heart. It's like Speaker 1: Well, finally then I'm special. I don't believe you. Because I am Sicilian and I definitely don't love Trump. Speaker 0: Secretly love I know that you do and I Speaker 1: know You can speak for himself. Speaker 0: If I know if I can X-ray your Sicilian soul, you'd be like, you go big orange. Speaker 1: Big orange. Yeah. I'm saying is this, I believe that look, you're gonna have people say, why are you talking to that guy? I'm gonna have people say, why are you talking to that guy? And I love answering the question because conversation is the cure. You don't have to agree, but you gotta listen, and you have to feel each other out, and you gotta take it in. And I'm happy to do it with you, I look forward to doing it again. Speaker 0: Amen. Thank you. Good to see you, man. So it turns out that YouTube is suppressing this show. On one level, that's not surprising. That's what they do. But on another level, it's shocking. With everything that's going on in the world right now, all the change taking place in our economy and our politics with the wars we're on the cusp of fighting right now, Google has decided you should have less information rather than more. And that is totally wrong. It's immoral. What can you do about it? Well, we could whine about it. That's a waste of time. We're not in charge of Google. Or we could find a way around it. A way that you could actually get information that is true, not intentionally deceptive. The way to do that on YouTube, we think, is to subscribe to our channel. Subscribe. Hit the little bell icon to be notified when we upload and share this video. That way you'll have a much higher chance of hearing actual news and information. So we hope that you'll do that.
ricwe123
Posted - May 26, 2025 at 12:47 PM
Saved - May 26, 2025 at 3:25 PM

@ricwe123 - Richard

Back in December 2013, Victoria Nuland openly bragged that the US had funneled $5 billion into Ukraine since 1991 to shove its pro-Western agenda down their throats. Washington was already laying the groundwork for the 2014 Maidan coup to oust Yanukovych. "Unprovoked" 😂😂😂 https://t.co/GHXBj9R7Lm

Video Transcript AI Summary
Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians in building democratic skills and institutions, promoting civic participation, and good governance. These are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. The U.S. has invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these goals, which will ensure a secure, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We've invested over $5,000,000,000 to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.
ivan_8848
Posted - July 3, 2025 at 6:02 PM
Saved - July 4, 2025 at 6:46 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
When people blame Putin for the war, I point out that it actually began in 2014. Turchynov, known as "the Bloody Pastor," ordered bombings in Donbas, leading to a conflict aimed at destabilizing Russia and overthrowing Putin, rather than starting in 2022.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

When They Blame Putin for Starting the War, Show Them This. How the War in Ukraine Actually Began 2014 The CIA Uses Anyone and Anything, Turchynov (Ukrainians nicknamed Turchynov "the Bloody Pastor") ordered the bombing of Donbas's peaceful cities. The entire war in Ukraine, which I believe started 2014, not in 2022, was an effort to kill Russians and destabilize, if they could, the Russian government and, overthrow Vladimir Putin.

Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2014, Turchinov announced the war in the East of Ukraine and ordered the bombing of Donbas. Ukrainians nicknamed him the bloody pastor. The war in Ukraine started in 2014 as an effort to kill Russians and destabilize the Russian government to overthrow Vladimir Putin. The CIA uses religion. Since Ukraine's independence, the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarch has been under pressure, which turned to religious war in 2023. There have been hundreds of attacks on Ukrainian Orthodox priests, dozens of whom have been imprisoned. Ukraine's nationalist ideologists call to burn Russian Orthodox churches. Ukrainian police and military participate in seizing Orthodox shrines. Monks in the Kyiv Picheska Lavra were ordered to leave, and the abbot was detained. Seized churches fall to newly formed Ukrainian churches. A Runvira Obelisk with nationalist ruins inscribed Lev Silenko is installed at the entrance to Kyiv Pachyska Lavra. The inscription says Silenko lit the sacred fire of the Ukrainian spiritual revolution.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In 2014, Turchinov announced the beginning of the war in the East of then unified Ukraine. He ordered the bombing of Donbas' peaceful cities. Ukrainians nicknamed Turchinov the bloody pastor. Throughout his tenure in the country's highest echelons of power, Turchinov preached regularly from the pulpit of the Word of Life Baptist Church in Kyiv. Speaker 1: The Speaker 2: entire war in Ukraine, which Speaker 3: I believe started twenty fourteen, fourteen, not in 2022, was an effort to kill Russians and destabilize, if they Speaker 1: could, the Russian government and, overthrow Vladimir Putin. Speaker 3: So the CIA uses anyone and anything if there's a religion. Speaker 0: Ever since Ukraine became an independent state, the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarch has been under pressure. In 2023, with the blessing of European and US human rights organizations, the pressure turned to outright religious war. In the last twelve months alone, there have been hundreds of attacks on Ukrainian Orthodox priests, dozens of whom have been imprisoned. On live TV and without hesitation, Ukraine's nationalist ideologists call on their fellow citizens to burn Russian Orthodox churches. Ukrainian police and military participate in seizing Orthodox shrines. The monks in Ukraine's oldest monastery, the Kyiv Picheska Lavra, were ordered to leave their cells, and the abbot was detained. Seized churches fall into the hands of the newly formed Ukrainian churches. A Runvira Obelisk with nationalist ruins inscribed Lev Silenko, the sect's founder, is installed at the entrance to captured Kyiv Pachyska Lavra. The inscription says, Silenko lit the sacred fire of the Ukrainian spiritual revolution, a fire that has already destroyed many, many lives and continues to rage.
ricwe123
Posted - July 15, 2025 at 5:31 PM
Saved - July 16, 2025 at 12:16 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a clip of Victoria Nuland from 2016, revealing the extensive US involvement in Ukraine post-2014 coup. She detailed US advisors in twelve ministries, American-trained police in 18 cities, and significant financial support, challenging the narrative that the war was "unprovoked."

@ricwe123 - Richard

Here’s Victoria Nuland in 2016, openly telling Congress just how far the US had buried its claws into Ukraine after the 2014 coup. No shame, no filter. Twelve Ukranian ministries crawling with US advisors, American-trained cops running operations in 18 cities, the Treasury wiping out 60 Ukrainian banks while keeping depositors happy, and $266 million thrown into training their military. But sure, keep parroting that this war was "unprovoked" 😂😂😂😂

Video Transcript AI Summary
US advisors are working within nearly a dozen Ukrainian ministries and localities to assist with service delivery, fraud elimination, tax collection improvement, and institutional modernization. US assistance has enabled the deployment of newly vetted and trained police officers in 18 Ukrainian cities. US-funded legal aid attorneys have secured two-thirds of all acquittals in Ukrainian courtrooms. Treasury and State Department advisors have aided Ukraine in closing over 60 failed banks and safeguarding depositor assets. Over $266 million has been allocated to the security sector, facilitating the training of 1,200 soldiers and 750 Ukrainian National Guard personnel, as well as providing essential equipment. Training and equipping Ukraine's border guards, military, and coast guard will continue in FY '16.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And US advisers serve in almost a dozen Ukrainian ministries and localities, helping to deliver services, eliminate fraud and abuse, improve tax collection, and modernize Ukrainian institutions. With US help, newly vetted and trained police officers are patrolling the cities the streets of 18 Ukrainian cities. In courtrooms across Ukraine, free legal aid attorneys funded by The US have won two thirds of all the acquittals in the countries. Treasury and State Department advisers have helped Ukraine shutter over 60 failed banks and protected the assets of depositors. And since there can be no reform in Ukraine without security, over $266,000,000 of our support has been in the security sector, training 1,200 soldiers and 750 Ukrainian National Guard personnel, and supplying life saving gear. In FY '16, we are continuing that training and equipment of more of Ukraine's border guards, military, and coast guard.
Uncommonsince76
Posted - August 20, 2025 at 3:38 PM
Saved - August 21, 2025 at 12:00 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I explore the complex relationship between Putin and Jewish influence in global politics. I trace Putin's rise from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the perceived exploitation by Jewish oligarchs under Yeltsin, leading to Putin's crackdown on them. I argue that Western media and politicians, often linked to Jewish interests, have portrayed Putin as a dictator while ignoring his efforts to protect Russian sovereignty. I suggest that the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the portrayal of Putin are influenced by these dynamics, advocating for a leader like him to counter perceived external control.

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

Why do the jews hate Putin? Why does the mass media spend so Much time trying to rile up the masses to go to war with him? Why does Mark Levin, Brian Krassentein, and Ben Shapiro do everything they can to tell us opposing Putin is in “our interest.” I’ll tell you why. 🧵 1/18 https://t.co/DWNNXAhn73

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

First we must go back and see the roots of what led to Putins rise to power. Remember that the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. The process of “liberalization” and turning Russias communist economy into a capitalist economy was left up to the planted Jewish puppet, Boris Yeltsin. As you can see he was president from 1991-1999. 🧵 2/18

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

Here is one Jewish puppet besides another… (Yeltsin/ Clinton) and you can see how they were working together for the “new world order of the west. -discussions of economic prosperity for Russia -American investment -Nuclear arms deals -Expansion of NATO.. Many may not remember, but when Bill Clinton was not sleeping with Mossad spy Monica Lewinsky, he was very much serving Jewish foreign policy with his overrepresented Jewish leadership in that area… (Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, William Cohen, Victoria Nuland, etc) 🧵 3/18

Video Transcript AI Summary
"Our position is that we're going to have an operation that works." "We want Russia to be involved in it." "We made some progress today consistent with both of our objectives with neither side giving up the things that were most important to it." "We made some progress today on that, and we recognized that some of the things that needed to be decided, neither of us could in good conscience decide without giving our military leaders the chance to work through that." "So we agreed that this week this week, our military leaders would be keep working." "That is all I can tell you." "The more we say about it, the worse it'll be." "We are moving toward peace." "The first and most important thing is make peace in Bosnia." "That has not been done yet." "There is no relationship between two"
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Our position is that we're going to have an operation that works. We want Russia to be involved in it. We made some progress today consistent with both of our objectives with neither side giving up the things that were most important to it. We made some progress today on that, and we recognized that some of the things that needed to be decided, neither of us could in good conscience decide without giving our military leaders the chance to work through that. So we agreed that this week this week, our military leaders would be keep working. That is all I can tell you. The more we say about it, the worse it'll be. We are moving toward peace. The first and most important thing is make peace in Bosnia. That has not been done yet. There is no relationship between two
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 outlines three outcomes: (1) there will be a NATO-Russia agreement that all the leaders will support; although they disagree on expansion, they agree that there must be a partnership between NATO and Russia going forward into the future. (2) the notion that Russia should play a larger role in international economic institutions, and that if certain internal changes are made, which president Yeltsin has already announced his support for, then The United States will make a more vigorous effort to facilitate investment in Russia. (3) they resolved a number of roadblocks relating to START II and other related issues which permitted us to say that president Yeltsin would seek a prompt ratification of START II and we would together support guidelines for START III, which we would hope could be negotiated quickly after that, which would reduce the Cold War arsenals by, over 80% from their Cold War height to more or less 80%. These are dramatic and very substantial results. Speaker 1: Just a moment. you've touched on a very current issue which has to be clarified all the way. well, you understand, of course, why is it that the state DOMA has not yet ratified START two?
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Different. One, the idea that there will be a NATO Russia agreement that all the leaders will support. That's a significant thing. We agree to disagree about the question of expansion, but we agree that there must be a partnership between NATO and Russia going forward into the future. Two, the the notion that that Russia should play a larger role in international economic institutions. And that if certain internal changes are made, which president Yeltsin has already announced his support for, then The United States will make a more vigorous effort to facilitate investment in Russia. And third, and I think almost unexpected even among us, we were working along here hoping this would happen. We resolved a number of roadblocks relating to start two and other related issues which permitted us to say that president Yeltsin would seek a prompt ratification of start two and we would together support guidelines for START three, which we would hope could be, negotiated quickly after that, which would reduce the Cold War arsenals by, over 80% from their Cold War height to more or less 80%. These are dramatic and very substantial results, and I'm very pleased with them. Wolf? Speaker 1: Just a moment. I'd like to continue for a second longer. You've touched on a very current issue which has to be clarified all the way. Well, you understand, of course, why is it that the state DOMA has not yet ratified START two?
Video Transcript AI Summary
“I I commend president Yeltsin for his commitment to continuing the path of economic reform.” He notes that in 1993 versus 1992 “the deficit was reduced as a percentage of annual income,” “inflation was brought down,” and “the stabilization of the currency was improved.” He supports further integrating the Russian economy into a global market system, acknowledges dislocations, and urges assistance so the Russian people know there is effort to address these problems. He predicts benefits will flow in the coming year as trade and investment expand and stresses the need for a social safety net and retraining. He says the people of Russia have to define their own future and rejects the idea that the US directs policy, declaring that as long as we share “the same values and the same vision” he wants to be “an equal partner” because “the world, the whole world and particularly Europe has a real interest in seeing Russia succeed and seeing this reform movement succeed.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I I commend president Yeltsin for his commitment to continuing the path of economic reform. If you look at 1993 as compared with 1992, If you look at how much the deficit was reduced as a percentage of annual income, if you look at how much inflation was brought down, if you look at how much the stabilization of the currency was improved. I think that the continued work toward hooking the Russian economy into a global economic system based on markets is a very sound thing. The we had great long talks about what could be done and what kind of assistance The United States and others could provide to recognize that there are certain dislocations which come from these changes so that the the people of Russia will know that there is an effort being made to deal with those problems. But I also have to tell you that I believe that that the people will begin to benefit in ways that they could not see perhaps last year in the coming year when we have more trade and more investment. And as people around the world and and in The United States in particular see that the president is serious about this, I think the benefits will begin to flow. That plus constructing the kind of social support system and job retraining, unemployment, all those things that just have to be put together and are not easy to put together when you don't have one. I think these things will help a lot. The other point I'd like to make to you sir, is that from my point of view, President Yeltsin has been unfairly criticized in some quarters for his relationship with The United States. The implication that somehow we have tried to direct the course of Russian policy or it is just not accurate and not true. The people of Russia have to define their own future. All I have tried to do is to say that as long as we share the same values and the same vision, as long as we share a dream of of political freedom and economic freedom and respect for our neighbors, I want to be an equal partner because I believe this is a very great nation and that the world, the whole world and particularly Europe has a real interest in seeing Russia succeed and seeing this reform movement succeed. So I think our relationships in that sense have been quite correct all along and some have sought to miss, characterize them in a way that I think is not accurate.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Presidents, one near the end of his term, the other being Putin seemed indifferent to the American president, who had championed Yeltsin and liberalization and expanded NATO. Putin conveys a huge amount through body language. He tries to show you that he's the alpha male in the room through the way he spreads his legs, through the way he slouches a bit in his chair. And this is not what Clinton was used to when it came to Russia. He was used to having somebody he could relate to, and Putin is a cold fish. And Clinton didn't respond well to him. If mister Clinton was hoping for a foreign policy triumph, he won't get it here.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Presidents, one near the end of his term, the other being Putin seemed indifferent to the American president, who had championed Yeltsin and liberalization and expanded NATO. Speaker 1: Putin conveys a huge amount through body language. He tries to show you that he's the alpha male in the room through the way he spreads his legs, through the way he slouches a bit in his chair. Speaker 2: And this is not what Clinton was used to when it came to Russia. He was used to having somebody he could relate to, and Putin is a cold fish. And Clinton didn't respond well to him. If mister Clinton was hoping for a foreign policy triumph, he won't get it here. Speaker 0: Later that day, Clinton received a warmer reception from Boris Yeltsin Yeltsin and issued a warning about Putin. Speaker 3: Bill Clinton looked hard into Yeltsin's eyes and said, I'm a little bit concerned about this young man that you have turned over the presidency to. He doesn't have democracy in his heart. And I will never forget the fa the expression that came over Yeltsin. Speaker 0: Yeltsin's confidants say by the end of his life, he would come to agree with Clinton. Speaker 3: Before Boris Yeltsin died, he told intimates that it was a great mistake for him to have selected Putin as his successor.

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

Well what’s the problem? Didn’t the Russian people love NATO expansion, economic liberalism, and de-nuclearization? As usual, the United States “sells liberalism” but what they mean is economic exploiting by Jewish capitalist. And Russia was no different. It didn’t take long for the “Semibankirschina” (7 bankers) to own a majority of the assets, and they exploited the Russian people accordingly. And yes most of them were Jews. 🧵 4/18

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

This led into the Russian financial crisis, and ultimately paved the way for a more nationalistic leader to come in. The people were aware of who their exploiters were. They also saw how chummy Yeltsin was with these Jewish oligarchs. Yeltsin was nervous he would be killed during the political unrest, so he needed a strong leader to take over for him, that would also agree to “pardon him.” That politically savvy, and strong leader, was Vladimir Putin. 🧵 5/18

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

One of the first things Putin did as president was meet with 20 or so of the rich men in Russia. (The predominantly Jewish oligarchs.) He told them flat out, the days of exploitation are done. They could still be rich, but they would have to stay out of his way, and the people would be served first. 🧵 6/18

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

Now, these Jewish billionaires did not take to that too kindly, but they shortly found out that Putin was not someone they could simply buy with money, or blackmail with Jeffrey Epstein schemes. Putin started dismantling these Jewish oligarchs from power one by one… -Vladimir Gusinsky -Jew ✡️ -Mikhail Khordorkovsky- Jew ✡️ -Boris Berezovsky- Jew ✡️ -Mikhail Prokhorov- Jew ✡️ This isn’t to say, he randomly singled out Jewish oligarchs. There are still Russian Jewish oligarchs today, but they respect the power that Putin holds. He only went after the ones that were undermining him and Russia, and in doing so he was able to return some assets to the state, and take control of some Of the media companies. 🧵 7/18

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

Now some of you are thinking, well those are dictatorial actions. And “he should allow those oligarchs to exploit the people since you know that’s what democracy works.” But you still believe that democracy is “rule of the people.” It is not. Our modern day democracies are rule by media bosses with a mixture of lobbyist during the political process. (Rule of money rather) As such, the interest of a nation are ground down, and the nation is ran by “oligarchs” or in the case of the United States we call them Jewish billionaires. In 2007, Putin lays out his criticisms of NGO’s, the U.S. abuse of power and continued military intervention, the need to refrain from “nato expansion”, and called for a multipolar world. Effectively, after turning Russia around, he told the Jewish led west, he was not going to be pushed around. He also opposed their Talmudic new world order goal, and he has been correct about the detrimental effects of foreign intervention that the U.S. continues to engage in at the behest of the jews… From then on, our Jewish media bosses, state department, and war lords, had it out for Putin.. and they have been trying to overthrow him ever since. 🧵 8/18

Video Transcript AI Summary
Спикер подчёркивает, что безопасность охватывает военно-политические, экономические и гуманитарные аспекты, и баланс явно нарушен. Он говорит: "ОБСЕ пытаются превратить в вульгарный инструмент обеспечения внешнеполитических интересов одной или группы стран в отношении других стран", и что "вскрыли бюрократический аппарат ОБСЕ" и "формально независимых, но целенаправленно финансируемых, а значит подконтрольных" НПО. По его словам, "гуманитарная сфера ОБСР призвана оказывать странам-членам по их просьбе содействие в соблюдении международных норм в области прав человека", но "это не означает вмешательство во внутренние дела других стран, тем более не навязывание этим государствам того, как они должны жить и развиваться." Такое вмешательство, по его мнению, "не способствует вызреванию подлинных демократических государств и наоборот делает их зависимыми и как следствие нестабильными." Он призывает ОБСЕ действовать по задачам и строить отношения с суверенными государствами на основе уважения и доверия. Россия, с тысячелетней историей, сохраняет независимую внешнюю политику и хочет сотрудничать с ответственными партнерами ради справедливого мироустройства для всех. Speaker notes: English translation of the Russian summary: Speaker emphasizes that security encompasses military-political, economic, and humanitarian aspects, and the balance is clearly broken. He states: "OSCE is trying to turn into a vulgar instrument of pursuing external political interests of one or a group of countries against others," and notes that "the bureaucratic apparatus of the OSCE has been exposed" and that "formally independent, but purposefully financed, and thus controlled" NGOs exist. According to him, "the humanitarian sphere of the OSCE is to assist member states at their request in upholding international norms in the field of human rights," but "this does not mean interference in internal affairs of other countries, and certainly not forcing these states how they should live and develop." Such interference, in his view, "does not contribute to the maturation of genuine democratic states and, on the contrary, makes them dependent and, as a consequence, unstable." He calls on the OSCE to act according to its tasks and to build relations with sovereign states on the basis of respect and trust. Russia, with a thousand-year history, maintains an independent foreign policy and wants to cooperate with responsible partners for a just world order for all, not for the chosen ones.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Я подчеркну это все аспекты безопасности: военно-политические, экономические, гуманитарные, причем в их взаимосвязи. Сегодня что мы видим на практике? Мы видим, что этот баланс явно нарушен. ОБСЕ пытаются превратить в вульгарный инструмент обеспечения внешнеполитических интересов одной или группы стран в отношении других стран. И под эту задачу вскрыли и бюрократический аппарат ОБСЕ, который абсолютно никак не связан с государствами и учредителями. Вскроили под эту задачу процедуры принятия решений и использования так называемых неправительственных организаций. Формально независимых, но целенаправленно финансируемых, а значит подконтрольных. Согласно основополагающим документам, в гуманитарной сфере ОБСР призвана оказывать странам-членам по их просьбе содействие в соблюдении международных норм в области прав человека. Это важная задача, мы ее поддерживаем. Но вовсе это не означает вмешательство во внутренние дела других стран, тем более не навязывание этим государствам того, как они должны жить и развиваться. Очевидно, что такое вмешательство отнюдь не способствует вызреванию подлинных демократических государств и наоборот делает их зависимыми и как следствие нестабильными в политическом и в экономическом плане. Мы рассчитываем на то, что ОБСЕ будет руководствоваться своими непосредственными задачами и выстраивать отношения с суверенными государствами на основе уважения, доверия. Уважаемые дамы и господа, в заключение хотел бы отметить следующее. Мы очень часто, и я лично очень часто, слышу призывы к России со стороны наших партнеров, в том числе и со стороны европейских партнеров, играть более и более активную роль в мировых делах. В этой связи позволю себе сделать одну маленькую ремарку вряд ли нас нужно подталкивать и стимулировать к этому. Россия страна с более чем тысячелетней историей, и практически всегда она пользовалась привилегией проводить независимую внешнюю политику. Мы не собираемся изменять этой традиции и сегодня. Вместе с тем, мы хорошо видим, как изменился мир, реалистично оцениваем свои собственные возможности и свой собственный потенциал. Конечно, нам бы также хотелось иметь дело с ответственными и тоже самостоятельными партнерами, с которыми мы вместе могли бы работать над строительством справедливого и демократического мироустройства, обеспечивая в нем безопасность и процветание не для избранных, а для всех.

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

In 2008, Jewish puppets John McCain (funded by the bronfman family) and Barrack Obama both have the same foreign policy and talking points when it comes to dealing with Putin. He’s a dictator, and the “west” needs to stand up to him… Meanwhile they slyly discuss how more Eastern European nations need to come under NATO (world Jewish control.) A no go for a nationalist like Putin. 🧵 9/18

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker argues Russia is a nation fueled by petrodollars and a KGB apparatchik run government, saying, "I looked into mister Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters, a k, a g, and a b." He calls Georgia's aggression unacceptable and links it to energy, noting "a pipeline that runs from the Caspian through Georgia through Turkey" and that "the Russians control other sources of energy into Europe." He cites solidarity from Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine in Tbilisi, and warns Russia aims to revive the "old Russian empire." The United States will "support the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine" into NATO, while Russia is "in violation of their ceasefire agreement" and has stationed troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He recalls a Georgian poster "Vladimir Putin, our president" and says "watch Ukraine" as Crimea and Sevastopol are cited; "we are their friend and ally." Senator McCain and I agree.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And Russia has now become a nation fueled by petrodollars that is basically a KGB apparatchik run government. I looked into mister Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters, a k, a g, and a b. And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior. I do believe that we need to bolster our friends and allies, and that wasn't just about a a problem between Georgia and Russia. It had everything to do with energy. There's a pipeline that runs from the Caspian through Georgia through Turkey. And, of course, we know that the Russians control other sources of energy into Europe, which they have used from time to time. It's not accidental that the presence of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine flew to Georgia, flew to Tbilisi, where I have spent significant amount of time with a great young president, Misha Sakashvili. And they showed solidarity with them, but also they are very concerned about the Russian threats to regain their status of the old Russian empire. Now I think the Russians ought to understand that we will support. We, The United States, will support the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine and and the the natural process inclusion into NATO. We also want to make it very clear that the Russians are in violation of their ceasefire agreement. They have stationed additional troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. By the way, I went there once, and we went inside and drove in, and there was a huge poster. And this is this is Georgian territory, and there was a huge picture of Vladimir Putin, and it said, Vladimir Putin, our president. It was very clear, the Russian intentions towards Georgia. They were just waiting to seize the opportunity. So this is a very difficult situation. We wanna work with the Russians, but we also have every right to expect the Russians to behave in a fashion in keeping with a with a with a country who respects international boundaries and the norms of international behavior. And watch Ukraine. This whole thing is a got a lot to do with Ukraine, Crimea, the base of the Russian fleet in Sevastopol, and the breakdown of the political process in Ukraine between Temushchenko and Yushchenko is a very serious problem. So watch Ukraine, and let's make sure that we that the Ukrainians understand that we are their friend and ally. Senator, do you have a major difference with what he just said? No. Actually, think senator McCain and I agree for

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

In 2012, when Hillary Clinton and our state department was lying to our faces about what Assad was doing and why, Putin and Russia were backing Assad. Saying that if Assad fell, Syria could fall into a perpetual civil war, and that they didn’t believe the reports of Assad using “chemical weapons.” Fast forward to now where Syria is a mess and the only country that benefited from Assads fall was Israel. Now it’s easy to see why the jews in our government wanted to get rid of Putin. 🧵 10/18

Video Transcript AI Summary
Where we both remain acutely concerned about the Assad regime's campaign of violence against their own citizens. The Assad regime's continued brutality is galvanizing international opinion. The United States will continue to work with our partners to turn this growing consensus into increased pressure and isolation for the Assad regime. President Assad has lost the legitimacy to lead, and it is clear that Syria would be better off without him. Yesterday, The United States imposed new sanctions, and ambassador Ford delivered a clear message to the Syrian government. Immediately stop the violence, withdraw your security forces, respond to the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people for a democratic transition in concrete and meaningful ways.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Where we both remain acutely concerned about the Assad regime's campaign of violence against their own citizens. Norway and our other European allies have been strong, consistent voices on behalf of the Syrian people, and I commend them for their advocacy. The Assad regime's continued brutality is galvanizing international opinion. There has been a crescendo of condemnation, not only from the world, but in particular from the region. After the Security Council statement, we've seen movement in rapid succession from the Arab League, the GCC, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others. The United States will continue to work with our partners to turn this growing consensus into increased pressure and isolation for the Assad regime. In particular, we urge those countries still buying Syrian oil and gas, those countries still sending Assad weapons, those countries whose political and economic support give him comfort in his brutality to get on the right side of history. President Assad has lost the legitimacy to lead, and it is clear that Syria would be better off without him. Yesterday, The United States imposed new sanctions, and ambassador Ford delivered a clear message to the Syrian government. Immediately stop the violence, withdraw your security forces, respond to the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people for a democratic transition in concrete and meaningful ways. Now it is something that we are
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: In gears to Syria. Our president has said that you're backing an evil guy there. He said Assad is an evil guy. Do you believe that? Speaker 1: what? That Assad is an evil person? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: Let's talk objectively. Has Assad made mistakes? Yes, probably. And more than a few. What about the people who oppose him? Are they angels or something? Who is it that's killing people over there? Executing children? Who's cutting off heads? Are these the kind of people we should support? Speaker 0: We all saw the video of the suffering, dying children. Do you deny? Because Assad denies that those tapes are real. Do you believe those tapes are fake? Speaker 1: That's false information. As of now, we're absolutely convinced that this was a provocation. Assad did not use those weapons, and all of this was done by people who then wanted to blame him. Speaker 0: The bodies of the victims were autopsy. The autopsies were witnessed by officials from the World Health Organization and from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and they concluded that the victims were attacked with sarin gas. Are are we really to believe that the whole thing was staged, that everybody was in on it? Speaker 1: The answer is very simple, and you know it. It could have been used by someone, but not Assad.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In gears to Syria. Our president has said that you're backing an evil guy there. He said Assad is an evil guy. Do you believe that? In Speaker 1: what? That Assad is an evil person? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: Let's talk objectively. Has Assad made mistakes? Yes, probably. And more than a few. What about the people who oppose him? Are they angels or something? Who is it that's killing people over there? Executing children? Who's cutting off heads? Are these the kind of people we should support? Speaker 0: We all saw the video of the suffering, dying children. Do you deny? Because Assad denies that those tapes are real. Do you believe those tapes are fake? Speaker 1: That's false information. As of now, we're absolutely convinced that this was a provocation. Assad did not use those weapons, and all of this was done by people who then wanted to blame him. Speaker 0: The bodies of the victims were autopsy. The autopsies were witnessed by officials from the World Health Organization and from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and they concluded that the victims were attacked with sarin gas. Are are we really to believe that the whole thing was staged, that everybody was in on it? Speaker 1: The answer is very simple, and you know it. It could have been used by someone, but not Assad.

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

In 2014, the U.S. state department led by jews like Victoria Nuland, staged a coup against the duly elected president Victor Yanukovych. What was Yanukovychs crime? He was too pro Russian, and was not necessarily going to push the boundaries for NATO expansion. So you can see the international jews went to work, with George Soros funding dissidents, the Jewish American media machine saying Yanukovych was not elected properly, and Jewish state department rep Victoria Nuland even handing out cookies to Ukrainian dissidents. This led to Putin invading and annexing the Crimea. 🧵 11/18

Video Transcript AI Summary
During the 1989 revolutions, you funded dissident activities and civil society groups in Eastern Europe, including Poland and the Czech Republic; are you doing similar work in Ukraine? He replies that he set up a foundation in Ukraine before its independence from Russia, and that the foundation has functioned ever since and played an important part in events now. He says Ukraine can assert independence from Russia and move toward the West, though Putin will try to destabilize it; the large majority of Ukrainians are determined to be independent, and with freedom, free media, and a flourishing economy, his regime would be unsustainable. He is asked about antisemitism in Ukraine; he notes antisemitism is part of the DNA of that part of the world, and there is antisemitism.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That many people recognized about you was that you, during the revolutions of nineteen eighty nine, funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in Eastern Europe and Poland, The Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine? Speaker 1: Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of, Russia, and the foundation has been, functioning ever since. And it played an important part in events now. Speaker 0: Do you think Ukraine will be able to assert a kind of independence from Russia, and an alignment, with the West? Not not a specific alignment as a NATO, but a kind of orientation toward the West, or will the Russians always stop them? Speaker 1: No. Putin will try to destabilize, Ukraine, but the Ukrainians, the large majority of Ukrainians are determined to be independent of of Russia. It won't be easy because Putin, has, staked his regime on destabilizing Ukraine because it's a threat to to his regime in Russia. If you have freedom, free media, and so on, and a flourishing economy, that would, make his regime, unsustainable. Speaker 0: He accuses the Ukrainians of being antisemitic, of them being full of antisemitic fascists. You operate in Ukraine. You're of Jewish origin. Have you detected virulent antisemitism in Ukraine? Speaker 1: Well, antisemitism is part of the DNA of that part of the world. So there is antisemit

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

Remember the “Russian Collusion hoax” of 2017? Did you know that research was funded by a Jew named Paul Singer?? 🧐 Obviously Trump was acquitted, but the intended effect was missed by many. It was to be associated with Russia, is a crime. Remember that Trump ran on “warming relations” With the Russians. Well that was pretty much iced by this fake scandal, and so it worked. 🧵 12/18

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

Then we have the 2nd impeachment hoax. Also involving Ukraine/Russia, but what was the crux of the matter? That Trump was going to withhold weapons from Ukraine…. A no no for our Jewish oligarchs. Thus this scandal provided the same effect yet again. Trump affirms his support of Ukraine, and distances himself from Russia, and everyone is afraid to tell the truth about Russia, or they will be labeled a “foreign agent” because Ukraine is our potential NATO ally. Well it’s not our ally. It’s manufactured state created by NATO and currently ran by a coke head Jew Zelensky …. Did you also know that the guy that “leaked” scandalous phone call for Trumps 2nd impeachment was also Jewish? What are the odds…. 🧵 13/18

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

Never forget how Zelensky came to power in Ukraine and who funded his rise… Before he was killed in Ukraine, American journalist Gonzalo Lira laid out exactly how Zelensky was manufactured and funded by Israeli Jewish billionaire Kolomoisky. And that same billionaire Kolomoisky, was the Jew who had a controlling interest in Burisma… the gas company that was paying Hunter Biden 50k a month. Oh a tangled web the Jews weave to blackmail/ buy influence… 🧵 14/18

Video Transcript AI Summary
Zelensky is 'the cokehead of Kyiv' and 'a manufactured political figure' created by Ukrainian Israeli Cypriot oligarch Igor Kolomoyski, owner of OnePlusOne Media, which financed and produced 'Servant of the People.' 'Servant of the People' hired Zelensky, a well known actor with zero political experience or even any political interest, to play the role of the President. Kolomoyski created a party called 'Servant of the People' and financed Zelensky to the point that Zelensky today is a billionaire; 'he's the finger puppet of Kolomsky.' Kolomoyski also financed Hunter Biden to the tune of $50,000 a month on Burisma's Board of Directors in 2014. 'Hunter Biden' and Zelensky are 'spiritual cousins' bankrolled by the same guy. The laptop mentions a 10% kickback to 'the old man.' The White House is freaking out over Ukraine; Westerners exploited Ukraine; Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Europe due to corruption.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You see, Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, well, the cokehead of Kyiv, because he is a cokehead, the cokehead of Kyiv is actually a manufactured political figure. He was manufactured by a Ukrainian Israeli Cypriot oligarch called Igor Kolomoyski. Igor Kolomoyski was the man who owns OnePlusOne Media here in Ukraine, And OnePlusOne Media is the company that financed and produced the TV show Servant of the People. Servant of the People hired Zelenskyy, a well known actor in Ukraine, an actor with zero political experience or even any political interest, well, they hired him to play the role of the President in this show Servant of the People. Servant of the People had huge ratings, but a lot of people say that it was really weird the amount of propaganda and PR that was done for the show. It was disproportionate to any other show of any channel. The amount of PR positive press and all the rest of it, it was really pushed on the people. Some people say it was completely astroturf. Some people who know how to speak Ukrainian and who have watched the show have told me that it's a mildly enjoyable show, but no big deal. But anyway, the show was hugely popular, and it ran from 2015 to 2018, and almost seamlessly. Kolomoisky, the oligarch, created a party called Servant of the People, same name as the TV show, and their candidate was Zelensky, a man with no previous political experience and indeed no previous political interest. Kolomoisky financed Zelensky to the point that Zelensky today is a billionaire. How many actors do you know are billionaires? I don't think that Tom Cruise is a billionaire and he's the most successful actor in the world, if he's just an actor. Zelensky is more than just an actor. He's the finger puppet of Kolomoisky, this oligarch. And do you know who Kolomoisky also financed, to the tune of $50,000 a month, plus additional benefits of different sorts? Hunter Biden. Yes, in 2014, Burisma, the Ukrainian oil company gas company, hired Hunter Biden to be on its Board of Directors to the tune of $50,000 a month. Who do you think controls Burisma? Kolomovsky, the same guy who manufactured Zelensky as President of Ukraine. Yeah, I bet you didn't know that. Zelensky and Hunter Biden are spiritual cousins. They are bankrolled by the same guy. It's funny because both of them have drug addictions, pretty serious ones, both of them get their money from Kolomovsky, and both of them are intimately involved in Ukraine. But here's the difference, of course: Zelenskyy doesn't have a dad who's President of The United States, now does he? Why do you think the White House is freaking out so badly over Ukraine? In Ukraine, there are all kinds of secrets. In Ukraine, well, see, the more unsavory people in the Washington establishment have used Ukraine as their private piggy bank, to the detriment of the Ukrainian people. They have financially raped Ukraine, stripping it of monies and assets, monies and assets needed by the people of Ukraine. This is part of the reason that Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Europe, if not the poorest country in Europe, of the corruption, because of how Westerners have exploited it, Western politicians have exploited it. Hunter Biden? $50,000 a month. And you say to yourself, well, thousand isn't that much. Yeah, but $50,000 a year is the median household income in The United States. In Ukraine, a much poorer country, $50,000 a year, easily solve the problems of a good four or five families in Ukraine, the financial problems of those four or five families in Ukraine, for a year. And Hunter Biden was getting that money per month, just for himself. Although, of course, in the Hunter Biden emails there's talk that seems to be true that the old man would get a 10% kickback of whatever Hunter Biden was getting. That was in the laptop. Oh yeah. Look it up. You don't have to take my word for it. You don't have to take my word for any of what I'm telling you. Look it up yourself and you'll find it. It's very easy to find. Kolomovsky, the Ukrainian Israeli Cypriot oligarch, was financing Zelensky, was financing Joe Biden. God alone knows who else he was financing, and he was just one. There's a whole rotten bunch of these people here in Ukraine, and they were all busy paying off the West so that they could carry on their little evil deeds and whatnot. If you want to know why the West is freaking out over Ukraine, you have to understand that they are all terrified that the truth will come out in Ukraine.

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

After the Jews had their Zelensky puppet installed, and they their Jewish Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, they finally pushed Putin to the breaking point. He then invaded Ukraine in 2022. And the lying Jewish controlled mass media tells us, “Putin is crazy” and he is slaughtering Slavs. But he’s not. He’s been very strategic in trying to limit loss of life. And our lying media leaves out the fact that this was a totally Jewish provoked war, for NATO power expansion. They also always leave out the fact that the jews and the U.S. state department (one and the same) overthrew the Ukrainian regime in 2014…. 🧵 15/18

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

And if Putin is such an oppressive awful leader, like our Jewish media tells us, why then is Russia still allowed to be Russian? Putin has outlawed Gay Marriage, Transgender madness, and no one is going to jail for being proud to be a “White Russian.” In other words, Putin has shielded his people from the pernicious Jewish influence that is destroying the west right now. Under Putin, the Russian economy has done quite well from where it was in 1999. Also the debt situation and natural resource situation in Russia is great. Further the Russian Orthodox Church has done exceptionally well under Putins leadership. Meanwhile many brainwashed Christians in the west are serving Jews for the expansion of Israel while our nation fails. Putin even allowed for Edward Snowden to seek Asylum in Russia and has protected him against our blood thirsty government and its Jewish controllers… 🧵 16/18

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

Is Putin an out an out antisemite? No. He is not. He even has Jewish friends and the like, but clearly he is a nationalist, and he is opposed to the Jewish new world order. While he may not name them explicitly, he names them implicitly…. Like in these 2 clips where he describes the “American media propaganda machine” the “bankers”, and who really blew up Nordstream… 🧵 17/18

Video Transcript AI Summary
In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat The United States because The United States controls all the world's media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information, and we will not achieve results.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat The United States because The United States controls all the world's media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. Don't you know that? So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information, and we will not achieve results.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Germans clearly know that their NATO partner did this, but they and it damaged their economy greatly. It may never recover. Why are they being silent about it? That's very confusing to me. Why wouldn't the Germans say something about it? This also confuses me. But today's German leadership is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than its national interests. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the logic of their action or inaction. After all, it is not only about Nord Stream 1, which was blown up, and the Nord Stream 2 was damaged, But one pipe is safe and sound, and gas can be supplied to Europe through it. But Germany does not open it. We're ready, please.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But but here's a question you may be able to answer. You worked in Germany, famously. The Germans clearly know that their NATO partner did this, but they and it damaged their economy greatly. It may never recover. Why are they being silent about it? That's very confusing to me. Why wouldn't the Germans say something about it? Speaker 1: This also confuses me. But today's German leadership is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than its national interests. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the logic of their action or inaction. After all, it is not only about Nord Stream 1, which was blown up, and the Nord Stream 2 was damaged, But one pipe is safe and sound, and gas can be supplied to Europe through it. But Germany does not open it. We're ready, please.

@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense

So the jews and the west will continue do what they can to “pray for Putins death” as Krassenstein says below. But America should see through the propaganda. We need a leader very much like Putin if we are to ever overcome our Jewish overlords. If not, we will continue to see non white immigration, transgender lunacy, and wars in the Middle East (and Ukraine) for Israel… If you enjoyed this thread, Consider subscribing to the page! 🧵 18/18

View Full Interactive Feed