reSee.it - Related Post Feed

OlgaBazova
Posted - June 18, 2023 at 6:11 AM
Saved - June 21, 2023 at 5:20 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
In April 2022, Russia and Ukraine signed an agreement of permanent neutrality. The agreement included Russia withdrawing troops from certain areas, Ukraine declaring neutrality, reducing its armed forces, and giving up NATO aspirations in exchange for security guarantees from several countries. However, the West derailed peace talks and threw the treaty away. The West promised unlimited support to Ukraine to defeat Russia, escalating the conflict to a point of no return. The reality is that the West and Ukraine constantly lie, sacrificing an entire nation to satisfy their thirst for Russian blood.

@OlgaBazova - Olga Bazova

Yesterday Putin revealed an extremely important piece of information. In April 2022, an agreement of permanent neutrality of ukraine was signed between Russia and ukraine. It also reveals that the Western narrative that Putin can't be trusted is just another projection.🧵

@OlgaBazova - Olga Bazova

The basic outline of the agreement is as follows: 1. Russia withdraws troops from Kiev, Sumy and Chernigov 2. ukraine declares neutrality 3. ukraine reduces its armed forces 4. ukraine gives up NATO aspirations in exchange for security guarantees from a number of countries.

@OlgaBazova - Olga Bazova

The countries in question are the UK, the US, Turkey, France, China and Belarus. But what happened next will most likely go down in history as the beginning of an end of ukraine as we know it. Russia did indeed withdraw its troops, which was joked about as a gesture of goodwill.

@OlgaBazova - Olga Bazova

It was coined as the defeat of Russia in the battle of Kiev. It turns out that it was indeed a gesture of goodwill. Having snuffed it out, Boris Johnson flew to meet with Zelensky who subsequently, "on the orders of Washington, threw this treaty into the dustbin of history."

@OlgaBazova - Olga Bazova

From this moment on the escalation curve steepens to the state of no return for ukraine as the West seems to have promised a slew of wonder weapons and unlimited support to ukraine to defeat the pesky Russians once and for all.

@OlgaBazova - Olga Bazova

Since even before the conflict we've been hearing weasels like Paul Massaro and McFaul scream at the top of their lungs that Russia cannot be trusted and Russia always lies. But as we can see here the reality is quite different and it's the West and ukraine that constantly lie.

@OlgaBazova - Olga Bazova

The bloodthirsty psychopath leaders of the West wanted Russian blood so much that they sacrificed an entire nation to satisfy their thirst for Russian blood and exposed themselves to once again be cynical hypocrites and now they too are paying the price.

@OlgaBazova - Olga Bazova

The former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett has also confirmed that peace talks have been derailed by the Western leaders. https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/russia_ukraine-peace_blocked_western_powers_naftali_bennett_mediationraeli-prime-minister-claims/

Russia–Ukraine Peace Was Blocked By Western Powers, Former Israeli Prime Minister Claims | Hungarian Conservative Naftali Bennett made shocking claims about his derailed mediation efforts in the Ukraine conflict in a five-hour interview, uploaded to his own YouTube channel. hungarianconservative.com

@OlgaBazova - Olga Bazova

Addendum: pictured is a draft of the document that both parties have agreed to.

@OlgaBazova - Olga Bazova

An important addendum by David Sacks that answers some of the questions in the comment section. https://t.co/e6tkFhbpTr

MyLordBebo
Posted - July 16, 2023 at 6:29 PM
Saved - November 15, 2024 at 10:45 AM

@MyLordBebo - Lord Bebo

🚨MUST WATCH: “A US president can play a very important role, by reassuring Russia that we're not gonna consider them an enemy anymore and that we wanna be friends.” -> RFK breaks down the Ukraine war and explains how JFK directly talked to Chrushev, preventing WW3 many times! https://t.co/MeIk2xomY5

Video Transcript AI Summary
The war in Ukraine stems from a long history of provocation by the West towards Russia, particularly since NATO's eastward expansion after the Cold War. Promises made to Russia about NATO not moving east were broken, leading to heightened tensions. Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was seen as a response to perceived threats, including the potential inclusion of Ukraine in NATO. The U.S. has engaged in a proxy war, aiming for regime change in Russia rather than seeking peace. The conflict has resulted in significant casualties on both sides, and a military solution seems unlikely. Dialogue and diplomacy are essential to resolving the situation, and there is a need for improved relations with Russia to avoid further escalation, including the risk of nuclear war. Communication between leaders is crucial to address global threats like AI and biological weapons collaboratively.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That's the time we really need to do that. Speaker 1: Well, if we can apply that style of empathy, style of curiosity to the current war in Ukraine, what is your understanding of why Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022? Speaker 0: Vladimir Putin could have avoided the war in the Ukraine. His invasion was illegal. It was unnecessary, and it was brutal. But I think it's important for us to move beyond these kind of comic book depictions of a, you know, of this insane, avaricious Russian leader who wants to, you know, restore the the Soviet empire. And that that's why and it was I and it made an unvoked, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. He was provoked, and we were provoking him, and we were provoking him for for since 1997. And it's not just me that's saying that. I mean, when when and I and before Russia before Putin never came in, We were provoking Russia Russians in this way unnecessarily. And to go back that time in 1992 when the Russians moved out of when the Soviet Union was collapsing, the Russians moved out of East Germany, and they did that, which was a huge concession. And they had 400,000 troops in East Germany at that time, and they were facing NATO troops on the other side of the wall. Ogorbachev made this huge concession where he said to George Bush, I'm gonna move all of our troops out, and you can then reunify Germany under NATO, which was a hostile army to the to the so it was created to, you know, with hostile intent toward the Soviet Union. And he said, you can take Germany, but I want your promise that you will not move NATO to the east. And James Baker, who was his secretary of state, famously said, I will not move NATO. We will not move NATO 1 inch to the east. So then, 5 years later in 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was kind of the father of the neocons, who was a democrat at that time, served in the in the, Carter administration, he said he published a paper, a blueprint for moving NATO right up to the Russian border, a 1000 miles to the east, and and taking over 14 nations. And at that time, George Kennan, who was the kind of the deity of American dip diplomats, he was probably arguably arguably the most important diplomat in American history. He was the architect of the containment policy during World War 2, and he said, this is insane, and it's unnecessary. And if you do this, it's gonna provoke the Soviet, the I mean, the Russians to a violent response, and we should be making friends with the Russians. They lost the Cold War. We should be treating them the way that we treated the our adversaries after World War 2, like, with a martial plan to try to help them incorporate into Europe and to be part of the the brotherhood of, you know, of man and of western nations. We shouldn't continue to be treating them as an enemy and particularly surrounding them at their borders. William Perry, who was then the secretary of of, defense under Bill Clinton threatened to resign. He was so upset by this plan to move NATO to the east. And William Burns, who was then the US ambassador to the Soviet Union, who's now, at this moment, the head of the CIA, said at that time the same thing. If you do this, it is going to provoke the Russians toward a military response. And the the we we we moved it. We moved all around Russia. We moved to 14 nations, a 1000 miles to the east, and we put Aegis missile systems in 2 nations in Romania and Poland. So we did what, you know, what the Russians had done to us in 1962 that had provoked would have provoked the invasion of Cuba. We put those missile systems back there, and then we'd walk away unilaterally, walk away from the 2, nuclear and missile treaties, the intermediate nuclear and missile treaties that we had with Soviet with Russia. And when neither of us would put, those missile systems on the borders, we walk away from that, and we put Aegis missile systems, which are nuclear capable. They can carry the Tomahawk missiles, which have nuclear warheads. So the last, country that they didn't take was the Ukraine, and the Russians said and and, in fact, Bill Perry said this or or William Burns said it, who's now the head of the CIA. It is a red line. If we go into if we bring NATO into Ukraine, that is a red line for the Russians. They cannot live with it. They cannot live with it. Russia has been invaded 3 times through the Ukraine. The last time it was invaded, we killed it or the Germans killed 1 out of every 7 Russians. They destroyed my uncle described what happened to Russia, in his famous American University speech in in in 1963, 60 years ago this month or he's or last month, 60 years ago in June, June 10, 1963, he told that speech was telling American people, put yourself in the shoes of the Russians. We need to do that if we're gonna if we're gonna make peace. And he said, all of us have been taught, you know, that we won the war, but we didn't win the war. The Russians if anybody won the war against Hitler, it was the Russians. Their country was destroyed. They they all of their city and he said, imagine if all of the cities on the East Coast of Chicago were reduced to rubble, and all of the fields burns, all of the forest burns. That's what happened to Russia. That's what they gave so that we could get rid of Adolf Hitler. And he had them put themselves in their position. And, you know, today, there's none of that happening. We have refused repeatedly to, to talk to the Russians. We've broken up. There's 2 treaties, the Minsk agreements, which the Russians were willing to sign, and they said we will stay at the Russians didn't want the Ukraine. They showed that when they when the Donbas region voted 90 to 10 to leave and go to Russia. Putin said no. We we want Ukraine to stay intact, but we want you to sign a Minsk Accords to to you know, they the Russians were were very worried because of the US involvement in the coup in Ukraine in 2014 and then the oppression and the and the, you know, and the killing of 14,000 ethnic Russians. And Russia hasn't had the same re the same way that if Mexico put Aegis missile systems from China or Russia on our border and and killed 14,000, expats American, we would go in there. Oh, he does have a national security interest in the Ukraine. He has an interest in protecting the Russian speaking people of the Ukraine, the ethnic Russians, and the Minsk Accords did that. It left Ukraine as part of Russia. It left them as a semiautonomous region that could and, continue to use their own language, which is essentially banned by the coup, by the government we put in in 2014. And, and we wouldn't we we sabotage that agreement. And and in we now know in April of 2022, Zelensky and, Putin had inked a deal already to another peace agreement and that the United States sent Boris Johnson, the neocons in the White House, sent Boris Johnson over to the Ukraine to sabotage that agreement. So what do I think? I think this is a proxy war. I think this is a, you know, this is a war that the Neo cons in the White House wanted. They've said for 2 decades, they wanted this war, and that they wanted to use Ukraine as a pawn in a proxy war between, United States and Russia, the same as we used Afghanistan. And they in fact, they say it. This is the model. Let's use the Afghanistan model. That was said again and again And to to to get the Russians to overextend their troops and then fight them using local, fighters and US weapons. And when president Biden was asked, why are we in the Ukraine? He was honest. He says to depose Vladimir Putin, regime change for Vladimir Putin. And when his defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, in April 2022 was asked, you know, why are we there? He said, to degrade the Russians' capacity to fight anywhere. You know, to exhaust the Russian army and degrade its capacity to fight elsewhere in the world. That's not a humanitarian mission. That's not what we were told. We were we were told this was an unprovoked invasion, but and that we're there to bring a humanitarian relief to the Ukrainians, but that is the opposite. That is a war of attrition that is designed to chew up, to turn this little nation into an avatar of death for the flower of Ukrainian youth in order to advance a geopolitical ambition of certain people within the White House. And I, you know, I think that's wrong. We should be talking to the Russians the way that, you know, Nixon talked to Brezhnev, the way that Bush talked to Gorbachev, the way that my uncle talked to Khrushchev. We need to be talking with the Russians. We should and and and negotiating, and we need to be looking about how do we end this and preserve peace in Europe. Speaker 1: Would you, as president, sit down and have a conversation with Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky separately and together to negotiate Speaker 0: peace? Absolutely. Speaker 1: What about Vladimir Putin? He's been in power since 2000. So as the old adage goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts. Absolutely. Do you think he has been corrupted by being in power for so long? If you think of the man, if you look at his mind. Speaker 0: Listen. I don't know exactly, I can't say because I just I don't know enough about him or about you know, I my the evidence that I've seen is that he is homicidal. He kills his enemies or poisons them. And, you know, the reaction I've seen to that to hit those accusations from him have have not been to deny that, but to kind of laugh it off. I think he's a dangerous man and that, of course, you know, there's probably corruption in his regime. But having said that, it's not our business to change the Russian government. And anybody who thinks it's a good idea to do regime change in Russia, which has more nuclear weapons than we do, is, I think, irresponsible. And, you know, Vladimir Putin himself has said, you know, we will not live in a world without Russia. And it was clear when he said that that he was talking about himself. And, and he has his hand on a button that could bring, you know, Armageddon to the entire planet. So why are we messing with this? It's not our job to change that regime, and and we should be making friends with the Russians. We shouldn't be treating them as an enemy. Now we've pushed them into the camp with China. That's not a good thing for our country. And by the way, you know, what we're doing now does not appear to be weakening Putin at all. Putin now you know, if you believe the the polls that are coming out of Russia, they show him you know, the most recent polls that I've seen, show him with that 89% popularity that people in Russia support the war in Ukraine, and that, and they support him as an individual. So, and I understand there's problems with polling, and, you know, you don't know what to believe. But but the polls consistently show that. And, and I you know, it's not America's business to be the policeman of the world and to be changing regimes in the world. That's illegal. We're not we shouldn't be breaking international laws. You know, we should actually be looking for ways to improve relationships with Russia, not to, you know, not to destroy Russia, not to destroy and not to choose its leadership for them. That's up to the Russian people, not us. Speaker 1: So step 1 is to sit down and empathize with the leaders of both nations to understand their history, their concerns, their hopes. Just to open the door for conversation so they're not back to the corner. Speaker 0: Yeah. And I think the US can play a really important role, and a US president can play a really important role by reassuring the Russians that we're not gonna consider them an enemy anymore, that we wanna be friends. And it doesn't mean that you have to let down your guard completely the way that you do it, which was the way president Kennedy did that it is. You do it one step at a time. You take baby steps. We do a unilateral move to reduce our, you know, our our hostility and aggression and see if the Russians reciprocate. And, and that's the way that we should be doing it, and, you know, we should be easing our way into a positive relationship with Russia. We have a lot in common with Russia, and we should be friends with Russia and with the Russian people. And, you know, apparently, there's been 350,000 Ukrainians who have died at least in this war, And, and there's probably been, 60 or 80,000 Russians, and that should not give us any joy. It should not give us any you know, I saw Lindsey Graham on TV saying, you know, anything we can something to the extent that anything we can do to kill Russians is a good use of our money. That it is not. You know, those are those are somebody's children. They're you know, we should have compassion for them. This war is an unnecessary war. We should settle it through negotiation, through diplomacy, through statecraft, and not through weapons. Speaker 1: Do you think this war can come to an end purely through military operations? Speaker 0: No. I mean, I don't think there's any way in the world that the Ukrainians can beat the Russians. I don't think there's any appetite in Europe. I think Europe is now, you know, in having severe problems in Germany, Italy, France. You're seeing these riots. There's internal problems in those countries. There is no appetite in, in, in Europe for sending men to die in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians do not have anybody left. The Ukrainians are using press gangs to, to, you know, to fill the ranks of their armies. Men military age men are trying as hard as they can to get out of the Ukraine right now to avoid going to the front. The front you know, is is the Russians apparently have been killing Ukrainians at 7 to 1 ratio. My son fought over there, and he told me it's an art you know, artillery he had. He had firefights with the Russians mainly at night, but he said most of the battles were artillery wars during the day, and the the Russians now out, outgun the NATO forces 10 to 1 in artillery. Oh, they're killing, at a horrendous rate now. You know, my interpretation of what's happened so far is that the Putin actually went in early on with a small force because he expected to meet somebody on the other end of the negotiating table there once he went in. And, and that when that didn't happen, they did not have a large enough force to be able to mount an offensive. And so they've been building up that force up till now, and they now have that force. And even against this small original force, the Ukrainians have been, hope helpless. All of their offenses have died. They've now killed, you know, the head of the Ukrainian, special forces, which was the probably, arguably, by many accounts, the best, elite military unit in all of Europe. The the commandant, the commander of of the, that special forces group, gave a a speech about, 4 months ago saying that 86% of his men are dead or wounded, and Will cannot return to the front. He cannot rebuild that force. The, and, you know, the the the troops that are now headed, that are now filling the gaps of all those 350,000 men who have been lost are, are scantily trained, and they're arriving green at the front. Many of them do not wanna be there. Many of them are giving up and going over the Russian side. We've seen this again and again again, including platoon size groups that are defecting to the Russians. And, I don't think it's possible. And and anybody you know, I saw I I of course, I've studied World War 2 history exhaustively, but I saw a, there's a new I think it's a Netflix series of documentaries that I highly recommend to people. They're it's they're colorized versions of the black and white Mhmm. Films from the battles of World War 2, but it's all the battles of World War 2. So I watched Stalingrad the other night, and, you know, the the willingness of the Russians to, to fight on against any kind of allies and to make huge sacrifices of Russians. The Russians themselves who are making the sacrifice with their lives, The willingness of them to do that for their motherland is almost inexhaustible. It is incomprehensible to think that the, that Ukraine can can beat Russia in a war. It would be like Mexico beating the United States. It it's just it's impossible to think that it can happen, and, you know, Russia has has deployed a tiny, tiny fraction of its military so far. And, you know, now it has China with its mass production capacity supporting its war effort. It's just it's a it's a hopeless situation, and we've been lied to. You know, we're the the press in our country and our government are just are just, you know, promoting this lie that the Ukrainians are about to win and that everything's going great and that Putin's on the run, and there's all this wishful thinking because of the the Wagner Group, you know, the the Progression. And the Wagner Group that this was an internal coup, and it showed dissent and weakness of Putin, and none of that is true. I was a that that insurgency, which wasn't even an insurgency. He only got 4,000 of his of his men to follow him out of 20,000, and they were quickly stopped. And nobody in the Russian military, the oligarchy, the political system, nobody supported it. You know? And but we're being told, oh, yeah. It's the beginning of the end for blue Putin. He's weakened. He's wounded. He's on his way out, and all of these things are just lies that we are being fed. Speaker 1: So push back on a small aspect of this that you kind of implied. So I've traveled to Ukraine. And one thing that I should say similar to the battle of Stalingrad, it is just not it is not only the Russians that fight to the end. I think Ukrainians are very Yeah. To fight to the end. And the morale there is quite high. I've talked to nobody. This was a year ago in August with her son. Everybody was proud to fight and die for their country, and there's some aspect where this war unified the people to get gave them a reason and an understanding that this is what it means to be Ukrainian, and I will fight to the death to defend Islam. Speaker 0: I, you know, I would agree with that, and I I should've said that myself at the beginning. You know, that's one of the reason my son went over there to fight because the you know, he was inspired by the valor of the Ukrainian people and the, you know, this extraordinary willingness of them. And I think Putin thought it would be much easier to sweep into Ukraine, and he found, you know, a stone wall of, of Ukrainians whether ready to put their their lives and their bodies online. But that, to me, makes the the whole episode even more tragic is that, you know, I don't believe I I, you know, I I think that the US role in this, has been, has you know, that there there were there were many opportunities to settle this war, and the Ukrainians wanted to settle. Volodymyr Zelenskyy when he ran in 2019. Here's a guy who's a a comedian. He's a he's an actor. He had no political experience, and yet he won this election with 70% of the vote. Why? He won on a peace platform. Anyone promising to sign the Minsk Accords, and yet something happened when he got in there that made him suddenly pivot. And, you know, I think it's a good guess what happened. I think he was you know, he came under threat by ultranationalist within his own administration, and the insistence of neocons like Victoria Nuland in the White House that, you know, we we don't want peace with Putin. We want a war. Speaker 1: Do you worry about nuclear war? Speaker 0: Yeah. I worry about it. It's, Speaker 1: it seems like a silly question, but it's not. It's a serious question. Speaker 0: Well, the reason it's not, you know, the reason it it, might it's not. It's just because, people seem to be in this kind of dream state about that it'll never happen. And yet, you know, we're, it it can happen very easily, and it can happen at any time. And, you know, if we push the Russians too far, you know, I I don't doubt that Putin, if he felt like his regime was in you know, or his nation was in danger, that the United States was gonna be able to place, you know, a a quizzling on, you know, in into the Kremlin, that he would use nuclear, you know, torpedoes. And, you know, these, these strategic weapons that they have, and that could be the be it. Once you do that, nobody controls the trajectory. By the way, you know, I have I have very strong memories of the, Cuban Missile Crisis. And out of those 13 days, when we came closer to nuclear war, you know, and particularly, I think it was when the u two got shot down over, Cuba that you know? And nobody in this there's a lot of people in Washington DC who, at that point, thought that they very may well, may wake up dead. That the world may end at night. 30,000,000 Americans killed, a 130,000,000 Russians. This is what our military brass wanted. They saw a war with Russia, nuclear exchange with Russia as not only inevitable, but also desirable because they wanted to do it now. We still had a a superiority. Speaker 1: Can you actually go through the feelings you've had about the Cuban Missile Crisis? Like, what what are your memories of it? What what are some interest Speaker 0: I know. In the middle of I was going to school in Washington, DC to, to sit well, or to, Our Lady of Victory, which is, in Washington, DC. So we were I lived in Virginia across the Potomac, and we would cross the bridge every day into DC. And during the crisis, US Marshals came to my house to take us, I think, around day 8. My father was spending the night at the White House. He wasn't coming home. He was staying with the ex comm committee and sleeping there, and they were up, you know, 24 hours a day. They were debating and trying to figure out what was happening. And, but we had US Marshals come to our house to take us down. They were gonna take us down to White Silver Springs in, in Southern Virginia in the in the Blue Ridge Mountains where where there was a, there was an underground city, essentially, a bunker that was like a city, and apparently, it had McDonald's in it and a lot of other you know, it had it was a full city for the US government and their families. US Marshals came to our house to take us down there, and I was very excited about doing that. And this was at a time, you know, when we were doing the drills. We were doing the ducking cover drills, once a week at our school where they would tell you if they that, you know, when the alarms go off, then you you put your head onto the table. You take the remove the sharps from your desk, put them inside your desk, you put your head onto the table, and you wait. And the initial blast will take the windows out of the school, and then we all stand up and and file in an orderly fashion into the basement where we're gonna be for the next 6 or 8 months or whatever. But in the basement where, you know, we we went occasionally in those corridors, we're lined with, freeze dried food can off to the from floor to ceiling. So people were you know, we were all preparing for this, and it was, you know, Bob McNamara, who is my who is a friend of mine and, you know, is my father. One of my father's close friend is secretary of defense. He later called it mass psychosis, and my father deeply regretted participating in the bomb shelter program because he said it it was part of a a, you know, a psychological psyop trick to treat them to teach Americans that nuclear war was acceptable, that it was survivable. And my father anyway, when the when the marshals came to our house to take me and my brother Joe away, and we we were the ones who are home at that time, My father called, and he talked to us on the phone. And he said, I don't want you going down there because, because if you disappear from school, people are gonna panic. And I need you to be a good soldier and go to school. Now what and and he said something to me during that period, which was that if a nuclear were to happen, it would be better to be among the dead than the living, which I did not believe. Okay. I mean, I I had already prepared myself for the, you know, for the for the dystopian future, and I knew I could I spent every day in the woods. I knew that I could survive by catching crawfish and, you know, cooking mud puppies and all to whatever I had to do. But I felt like, okay. I can I can handle this? And I really wanted to see the setup down in, you know, this underground city. But, anyway, that was, you know, part of it for, me. My father was away and, you know, the last days of it. My father, got this idea because Khrushchev had sent 2 letters. He sent one letter that was conciliatory, and then he sent a letter that after his joint chiefs and the warmongers around him saw that letter, and they disapproved of it. They sent another letter that was extremely belligerent. And my father had the idea. Let's just pretend we didn't get the second letter and reply to the first one. And then he went down to Dobrinin and who was he met Dobrinin in the justice department. And Dobrin was the Soviet ambassador. And they, you know, they proposed this settlement, which was a secret settlement where Khrushchev would withdraw the missiles from Cuba. Khrushchev had put the missiles in Cuba because we had put missiles, you know, nuclear missiles in in Turkey and Italy. And my uncle's secret deal was that if he if Khrushchev removed the missiles from Cuba within 6 months, he would get rid of the Jupiter missiles in Turkey. But if Khrushchev told anybody about the deal, it was off. Mhmm. So if if news got out about that secret deal, it was off. That was the actual deal, And Khrushchev complied with it, and then my uncle complied with it. Speaker 1: How much of that part of human history turned on the decisions of 1 person? Speaker 0: I think that's one of the you know, because that, of course, is the perennial question. Right? What is history kind of on a on a automatic pilot? And, you know, human decisions, decisions leaders really only have, you know, marginal or incremental bearing on what is gonna happen anyway. But I think that is the and the historians argue about that all the time. I think that that is a really good example of a play of a a place in human history that, that literally the world could have ended if we had a different leader in the White House. And the reason for that is that there were, as I recall, 64 gun emplacements, you know, missile missile emplacements. Each one of those missile emplacements had a crew of about a 100 men, and they were Soviets. So, they were and they we didn't know whether we we had a couple of questions that my uncle asked Alan or asked the CIA, and he asked Dulles was already gone, but he asked the CIA and he asked, his military brass because they all wanted to go in. Everybody wanted to go in. And my uncle said, my uncle asked to see the aerial photos, and he examined those personally. And that's why it's important to have a leader in the White House who could push back on on their bureaucracies. He, and then he asked them, you know, are those who's manning those missile sites? Who and are they Russians? And if they're Russians and we bomb them, are they isn't it gonna force Khrushchev to then go into Berlin? And that would be the beginning of a cascade effect that would, you know, highly likely to end a nuclear confrontation. And the the, the military said to my uncle, oh, we don't think you'll have the, you know, we don't think you'll have the, the guts to do that. Mhmm. So he went my uncle was like, that's what you're betting on? And, you know, they all wanted him to go in. They wanted him to bomb the sites and then invade Cuba. Mhmm. And he said if we bomb those sites, we're gonna be killing Russians, and it's gonna force it's gonna provoke Russia into some response, and the obvious response is for them to go into Berlin. Oh, the but the thing that we didn't know then, we didn't find out until, I think, you know, there was a it was like a 30 year anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Havana. And what we learned then was that from the Russians who came to that event. It was like a symposium where everybody on both sides talked about it, and we learned a lot of stuff and and never nobody knew before. One of the insane things, the most insane thing that we learned was that the the weapons were already the the nuclear warheads were already in place. They were ready to fire, and that the authorization to fire was made, was delegated to each of the gun crew commanders. So there were 60 people who had all had authorization to fire if they felt themselves under attack. So you have to believe them. At least one of them would have launched, and that would have been the beginning of the end. And, you know, if they if anybody had launched, you know, we knew what would happen. My uncle knew what would happen because he asked again and again what's gonna happen? And they said, 30,000,000 Americans will be killed, but we will kill a 130,000,000 Russians, so we will win. And that was a victory for them. And my uncle said later said he told he told Arthur Schlesinger and Kenny O'Donnell. He said, those guys, he called them the salad brass, the guys with all of this stuff on their chest. And he said he said, those guys, they don't care because they know that if it happens, that they're gonna be in the charge of everything. They're the ones who are gonna be running the world after that. Speaker 1: Mhmm. Speaker 0: So for them, you know, it was it was an incentive to to kill a 130,000,000 Russians and 30,000,000 Americans. But my uncle, he has this correspondence with Khrushchev. They were secretly corresponding with each other, and that is what saved the world is that they had both of them had been men of war. You know, Eisenhower famously said it will it will not be a man of war. It will not be a soldier who starts World War 3 because the guy who's actually seen it knows how bad it is. And my uncle, you know, had been in the heat of of the South Pacific. His boat had been cut in 2 by a Japanese destroyer. His many of it 3 of his crewmen had been killed. 1 of them badly burned. He he pulled that guy with a lanyard in his teeth 6 miles to a island in the middle of the night, and then they hid out there for 10 days. You know? And, and, you know, he came back. Like I said, he was the only, president of the United States that earned the purple heart. Meanwhile, Khrushchev had been at Stalingrad, which was the worst place to be on the planet, you know, probably in the 20th century, other than, you know, in Auschwitz or one of the death camps. It was, you know, it was it was the most ferocious, horrific war with people starving, people, you know, committing cannibalism, you know, eating the dogs, the cats, eating their shoe leather, or easing to death by the 1,000, etcetera. Khrushchev did not want the last thing he wanted was a war, and the last thing my uncle wanted was a war. And they but the the CIA did not know anything about Khrushchev. And the reason for that is the there was a mole at Langley so that every time the CIA got a spy in the Kremlin, he would immediately be killed. So they had no eyes in the Kremlin. You know, there were literally hundreds of Russia of Russian spies who had who were who had defected the United States and were in the Kremlin, who were killed during that period. They had no idea anything about Khrushchev, about how he saw the world, and they saw the Kremlin itself as a monolith, you know, that it is, this kind of, you know, the same way that we look at Putin today that, know, it's all they they have this ambition of world conquest, and that's it's driving them, and there's nothing else they think about. They're absolutely single-minded about it. But, actually, there was a big division between Khrushchev and, and his joint chiefs and his intelligence apparatus, and they and they both at one point discovered they were both in the same situation. They were surrounded by spies and military now who were intent on going to war, and they were the 2 guys resisting it. So when my uncle my uncle had this idea of, you know, being the peace president from the beginning, he told Ben Bradley, his one of his best friends who, you know, was run the publisher of the Washington Post or the editor in chief at that time. He said, Ben Bradley asked him, what is what do you want on your gravestone? And my uncle said, he kept the peace. He said, the principal job of the president of the United States is to keep the country out of war. And, and so when he first became president, he he anxiously agreed to meet Khrushchev in Geneva to do a summit. And by the way, Eisenhower wanted to do the same thing. Eisenhower wanted peace, but his and he was gonna meet in Vienna. But that peace summit was blown up. He was gonna try to do, you know, he was gonna try to end the Cold War. Eisenhower was in the last year of his of his in May of 1960, But that was torpedoed by the CIA during the u two crash. You know, they sent a u two over the over the Soviet Union, and it got shot down. And then they told and then Alan Dulles told Eisenhower to deny that we had a program. They didn't know that the Russians had captured Gary Francis Powers. And so when and and that blew up the peace talks between Eisenhower and Khrushchev. And so, you know, they and the the the there was a lot of tension. My uncle wanted to break that tension. He agreed to meet with, with Khrushchev in Vienna early on in his term. He went over there, and Khrushchev snubbed him. Khrushchev, lectured him imperiously about the, you know, the the terror of American imperialism and and rebuff any you know, they did agree not to go into Laos. They made an agreement that kept United States to keep my uncle from sending troops to Laos, but, it's a it had been a a disaster, Vienna. So then we had a spy that used to come to our house all the time. I I cut Georgi Bolshukoy. He was this Russian spy. My my parents had met at the embassy. They had gone to a party or reception at Russian embassy, and he had approached them. And they knew he was a he was a GRU agent and KGB. He was both oh, he used to come to our house. They really liked him. He was very attractive. He was always laughing and joking. He would do rope climbing contests with my father. He would do push up contests with my father. He was, he could do the Russian dancing, the Cossack dancing, and he would do that for us and teach us that. And he would and we knew he was a spy too. And this was at the time of, you know, the James Bond films were first coming out, so it was really exciting for us to have a actual Russian spy in our house. The state department was horrified by it. Yeah. But, but, anyway, when Khrushchev after Vienna and after, the, you know, the bay pigs, Khrushchev had second thoughts. And he sent this long letter to my uncle, and he didn't wanna go through his his state department or his embassy. He wanted to enrun them, but and he was friends with Polshkoy. So he gave Georgi the the letter, and Georgi brought it and handed it to Pierre Salinger, folded in the New York Times. And he gave it to my uncle. And it was this beautiful letter, which he said, you know, he my uncle had talked to him about the children who were played. You know, we played 29 grandchildren who were playing in his yard, and he's saying, what is our moral basis for making a decision that could kill these children so they'll never write a poem? They'll never participate in election. They'll never run for office. How can we make a how can we can we morally make a decision that is going to eliminate life for these beautiful kids. And, he has said that to to Khrushchev, and Khrushchev wrote them this letter back saying that he was now sitting as this dacha on the Black Sea and, that he was thinking about what my uncle Jack had said to him at Vienna, and he regretted very deeply not having taken the olive leaf that Jack had offered him. And then he said, you know, it occurs to me now that we're all on an ark and that there is not another one and that the entire fate of the planet and all of its creatures and all of the children are dependent on the decisions we make. And you and I have a moral obligation to go forward with each other as friends. And immediately after that, this was you know, they he said that right after the Berlin crisis in 1962. General Curtis LeMay, tried to, had tried to provoke a war with a an incident at Checkpoint Charlie, which was the the the entrance the entrance and exit through the Berlin Wall in Berlin. And the Russian tanks has come to the wall. The US tanks had come to the wall, and there was a standoff. And my uncle had had, sent a message to Khrushchev then through Dobrin and saying, my back is at the wall. I cannot I have no place to back to please back off, and then we will back off. And Khrushchev took his word, packed his tanks off first, and then my uncle ordered LeMay to back back. He had LeMay had mounted bulldozer plows on the on the front of the tanks to to plow down the Berlin Wall. Mhmm. And that and the Russians had come. So it was just you know, it was the it was the his generals trying to provoke a war. And, but they started talking to each other. And then when he after he wrote that letter, they agreed that they would install a hotline so they could talk to each other, and they wouldn't have to go through intermediaries. Mhmm. And so at at Jack's house on the Cape, there was a red phone that we knew if we picked it up, would answer. Speaker 1: Mhmm. Speaker 0: And there was another one in the White House. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: And but they knew it was important to talk to each other. You know? And you just wish that we had that kind of leadership today. I can, I you know, that that just understands our job? Look. I know you know a lot about AI. Right? And you know how dangerous it is potentially to humanity and what opportunities it also, you know, offers. But it could kill us all. I mean, Elon said, first, it's gonna steal our job, then it's gonna kill us. Right? Yeah. And it's it's probably not hyperbole. It's actually you know, if it follows the laws of biological evolution, which are just the laws of mathematics, that's probably a good endpoint for it, you know, a a potential endpoint. So, we we need it's gonna happen, but we need to make sure it's regulated, and it's regulated properly for safety in every country. And and that includes Russia and China and Iran. Right now, we we should be putting all the weapons of war aside and sitting down with those guys and say, how are we doing? How are we gonna do this? There's much more important things to do. We're gonna this stuff is gonna kill us if we don't figure out how to regulate it. And and leadership needs to look down the road at what what is the real risk here. And the real risk is that, you know, AI will will, you know, enslave us for one thing and, you know, and and then destroy us and do all this other stuff. And how about biological weapons? We're now all working on these biological weapons, and we're doing biological weapons from for Ebola and, and, you know, dengue fever and, you know, all of these other bad, things, and we're making ethnic bioweapons, bioweapons that can only heal Russians, bioweapons that that the Chinese are making that, you know, are are can kill people who don't who don't have Chinese genes. So all of this is now within reach. We're actively doing it, and we need to stop it. And we can easily a a biological weapons treaty is the easiest thing in the world to do. We can verify it. We can enforce it, and everybody wants to agree to it. It only insane people do not wanna wanna continue this kind of research. There's no reason to do it. So there are these existential threats to all of humanity now out there, like AI and biological biological weapons. We need to star stop fighting each other, start competing on economic game fields, playing fields instead of military playing fields, which will be good for all of humanity, and that we need to sit down with each other and negotiate reasonable treaties on how we regulate AI and and biological weapons. And nobody's talking about this in this political race right now. Nobody's talking about it in the government. They get fixated on these little wars and, you know, and, these comic book depictions of good versus evil and, you know, and we all go, you know, and and go off to and give them the weapons and enrich, you know, the military and gush a shuttle complex, but we're we're on the road to perdition if we don't end this. Speaker 1: And some of this requires to have this kind of phone that connects Khrushchev and John f Kennedy that cuts through all the bureaucracy Yeah. To have this communication between heads of state. And in the in the case of AI, perhaps heads of, tech companies, we can just pick up the phone and have a conversation. Because a lot of it, a lot of the existential threats of artificial intelligence, perhaps even bioweapons, is unintentional. It's not even, strategic and actionable effects. So you have to be transparent and honest about especially with AI, the people who might not know what what's the worst that's going to happen once you release it out into the wild. And you have to have an honest kind of communication about how to do it so that companies are not terrified of regulation, overreach of regulation. And then, government is not terrified of tech companies of, manipulating them in some direct or indirect ways. So, like, there's a trust that builds versus a distrust. That that seems to so, basically, that old phone where Khrushchev can call John f Kennedy is needed. Speaker 0: Yeah.
VigilantFox
Posted - August 15, 2023 at 1:01 AM
Saved - August 15, 2023 at 4:40 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Robert Kennedy Jr. reveals that Ukraine's President intended to sign a peace agreement with Russia, protecting ethnic Russians. However, Boris Johnson was sent to Ukraine to sabotage the deal. The US portrayed it as a humanitarian crisis, but their true objectives were regime change in Russia. Kennedy argues that Ukraine is a proxy in the struggle between Russia and the US. Over $113 billion has been committed. Watch the full interview here: [link].

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

.@RobertKennedyJr Reveals What The Media Will Never Tell You About Ukraine War • According to Kennedy, President Zelensky had intentions of signing the "Minsk Accords 2.0," a peace agreement with Russia, in March 2022. • The agreement left Ukraine intact but provided protections for ethnic Russians in Ukraine. • Putin started withdrawing his troops. However, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was sent to Ukraine to "torpedo the agreement." • The US marketed Ukraine as a humanitarian crisis. Yet, when pressed, US leaders said the objectives were regime change in Russia and the exhaustion of the Russian army. "So, again, that has nothing to do with Ukraine," argued Kennedy. "What that means is the Ukraine is a proxy in essentially a struggle between two superpowers, between Russia and the United States. And we've now committed $113 billion over there."

Video Transcript AI Summary
Russia invaded Ukraine with only 40,000 troops, indicating they did not aim to take over the entire country. Instead, they wanted to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table. In March 2022, Ukrainian President Zelensky and Russian President Putin agreed on a peace agreement based on the Minsk Accords. However, President Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to sabotage the agreement, leading to war. Since then, 350,000 Ukrainian children and 40-50,000 Russians have died. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin questioned the purpose of the war, while Biden stated it was for regime change in Russia. This conflict is essentially a proxy struggle between Russia and the United States, with the US committing $113 billion to Ukraine, far surpassing the budgets of other organizations.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Then Russia invades, but Russia only invades. And so we say, oh, look. He you know, Putin is trying to take over Europe. But but they only send in 40,000 troops. I think there's 3 a half 1000000 people in Kiev, so they clearly did not wanna take the country. He he wanted he clearly wanted to bring people to the negotiating table. He did not send in enough troops to take all of of Ukraine. So, so then and they and Liz Zelensky comes to the negotiating And we now know this and this is recent information. In March of 2022, Zelensky and Putin agree on a peace agreement that's based upon the Minsk Accords. There's it's like Minsk Accords 2.0. And Zelensky initials it. The Russians initial it. And Russia begins withdrawing its troops from Ukraine. And what happens? President Biden sends Boris Johnson over there to torpedo the agreement and make make Zelensky tear it up. And then we go to war. 350,000 Ukrainian kids are now dead. And, and, you know, 40 or 50,000 Russians. Oh, and and and that month, April, that April is when they signed it in March. April, we Boris Johnson was sent over there to torpedo it. And that month, Lloyd Austin, who is the secretary of defense under, under Biden, He asked why are we at war with Russia, in Ukraine? He said our purpose in this war is to exhaust the Russian army and degrade its capacity to fight anywhere else in the world. That is not what they're telling us. But Biden that funds says when he's asked about the war in Ukraine. He says, our purpose is regime change in Russia. So again, that has nothing to do with Ukraine. What that means is that Ukraine is a proxy and essentially a struggle between 2 superpowers between Russia and the United States. And, you know, we've now committed $113,000,000,000 over there. And just put that in perspective, the Total budget of EBA is 12,000,000,000. The total budget of the CEC is 12,000,000. We're sending a 113,000,000,000 over.

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

Full video / more clips from this interview: https://vigilantnews.com/post/explosive-interview-rfk-jr-talks-ukraine-biolabs-and-the-real-killer-behind-his-uncles-death

Explosive Interview: RFK Jr. Talks Ukraine, Biolabs, and The Real Killer Behind His Uncle's Death w/ Tucker Carlson RFK Jr. also unveiled Mike Pompeo's chilling confession about the CIA. vigilantnews.com
Resist_05
Posted - August 16, 2023 at 1:34 AM
Saved - August 16, 2023 at 3:51 AM

@Resist_05 - Pelham

Robert Kennedy Jr… “The war was never about Ukrainian freedom, it was regime change in Russia. None of those children had to die and we should seek a peace agreement.”

Video Transcript AI Summary
Biden and Austin admitted that the purpose of the war in Ukraine was not about Ukrainian freedom, but rather to exhaust the Russian army and engage in a proxy war. The US repeatedly prevented Zelensky from signing the Minsk Accords, which could have prevented the war. The speaker believes that the US deliberately provoked Russia and that the war could have been avoided. They argue that the US's actions have led to negative consequences, such as pushing Russia towards China and risking the dollar's status as the world reserve currency. Additionally, the speaker highlights the danger of provoking a nuclear superpower and questions why the conflict was not resolved peacefully from the start.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Biden was asked about what the purpose of the war was, he said regime change in Russia. When Lloyd Austin, his secretary of defense, was asked in April 2022, right after they blew up the agreement, why are we in Ukraine? He said to exhaust the Russian army and to create its capacity to of fight anywhere else in the world, that is not about Ukrainian freedom. It is about using Ukraine in a proxy war and a geopolitical dispute between 2 great powers. Are you saying that a United States falls on Russia invaded Ukraine? No. I said, no, I'm not. Vladimir I'm not making any excuse for Vladimir Putin. He is his. The invasion was illegal. It was brutal and he had other options. But did we deliberately provoke the action? Yes, we did. Again and again and again, we would not allow Zelensky to sign the Minsk Accords in 2019. Zelensky ran as the peace candidate, he was a he's a comedian. He's an actor, which I'm not disparaging because that's what my wife does, but he had never been in politics and he what he won was 70% of the vote. Why? Because he ran promising that he would sign the Minska courts which were already agreed to by Russia, by France, and by Germany, and then the United States, we, our White House, went over there, we would not let him sign. If we had let him sign, this war would have never happened and all those kids would be alive today. Of the building, he was wondering why do you think that another attempt to convince the court to be able to deal with? Said, I don't think the Russians, would agree to the men's decors today, but the men's decors didn't work before because we wouldn't let him work. The Russians were gonna let him work. Germany was going to, France and and and, and Zelensky was going to. Said, oh, they work for everybody except for the neocons in the white house who wanted this war. Did, I would negotiate with the Russians. What was that experience? Oh, I I wouldn't tell you. You're you you keep asking me questions that it would be crazy for me to answer. Said, you know, I I negotiate for a living. I've settled hundreds of lawsuits. You never tell them what you're gonna negotiate for before you negotiate. Of thought, I would say my answer to that is strategic ambiguity. Of decline. I I I would love to go to Ukraine. Mister Kennedy, I'm sorry. Of defense. Yeah. I I would but here's the thing. What you're saying is really important. Said, because the Russian group we are provoking, not only have we made the worst geopolitical mistake, which is to push the Russians took into an embrace of China, which is the worst geopolitical outcome that we we can imagine, we've essentially fueled the creation of bricks where 40 nations are now threatening to get off of of of the dollar as the as the world reserve currency, if that continues then, you know, what that will make the great depression look like a cakewalk for us. But the Russians also, most importantly, have more nukes than we do. They have at least a 1,000 more nuclear weapons than we do and they and many people argue that their weapons are much better than ours. That that they have any ballistic weapons that actually work. So there's not incoming missiles from the end of Russia and we and that ours are much inferior. Now why are we getting why are we provoking of war with the big with a nuclear superpower. Why are we settling this from the beginning?
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.

KimDotcom
Posted - October 21, 2023 at 3:05 PM
Saved - October 24, 2023 at 1:25 PM

@KimDotcom - Kim Dotcom

Ukraine was ready to sign a peace agreement with Russia but the US Govt did not allow it. Confirmed by Gerhard Schroeder, former leader of Germany. https://t.co/2VNlTDPbhr

MyLordBebo
Posted - November 24, 2023 at 8:31 PM
Saved - November 24, 2023 at 11:26 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Boris Johnson's recent statement confirms our suspicions: he has forbidden any peace deal, prolonging the war. Russia aimed to force us into neutrality, like Finland, but we made a commitment not to join NATO. This crucial detail reveals their true intentions. The war could have ended in early 2022 if Johnson hadn't intervened.

@MyLordBebo - Lord Bebo

🇷🇺🇺🇦‼️🚨 BOMBSHELL: "Boris Johnson came and said, that we will not sign anything with them and will fight!" -> We were right, he confirmed that Boris Johnson essentially forbid the peace deal! The war could have ended in early 2022! "Russia’s goal was to crush us so that we would take neutrality. This was the main thing for them: they were ready to end the war if we accepted neutrality, like Finland. And we will make a commitment that we will not join NATO. This was the main thing” -- the leader of the Servant of the People faction, David Arakhamia.

RnaudBertrand
Posted - November 25, 2023 at 5:42 AM
Saved - November 26, 2023 at 6:36 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Ukrainian parliamentary leader confirms that Russia's main goal was to make Ukraine a neutral country, not invade it entirely. Ukraine couldn't agree due to constitutional constraints and lack of trust in Russia. Western officials were skeptical of the proposed security guarantees. Boris Johnson's refusal to sign anything led to the collapse of the deal. The West's responsibility in triggering the conflict and its failure to secure favorable conditions in a peace deal are evident. There seems to be no accountability or willingness to learn from these catastrophic failures.

@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand

This is an incredibly damning piece of historical evidence: This is Davyd Arakhamia, parliamentary leader of Zelensky's ''Servant of the People'' party. He led the Ukrainian delegation at peace talks with the Russians in Belarus and Türkiye in 2022, a few weeks into the war. Here’s what he says: - He confirms that Russia’s principal goal for the war wasn’t to invade the whole of Ukraine but to force Ukraine to become a neutral country that would not be part of NATO: “[Russia] really hoped almost to the last moment that they would force us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality. It was the most important thing for them. They were prepared to end the war if we agreed to, – as Finland once did, – neutrality, and committed that we would not join NATO. In fact, this was the key point. Everything else was simply rhetoric and political ‘seasoning’ about denazification, the Russian-speaking population and blah-blah-blah." - When asked why Ukraine did not agree to this, here’s what he says: “First, in order to agree to this point, it is necessary to change the Constitution. Our path to NATO is written in the Constitution. Secondly, there was no confidence in the Russians that they would do it. This could only be done if there were security guarantees. We could not sign something, step away, everyone would relax there, and then they would [invade] even more prepared – because they had, in fact, gone in unprepared for such a resistance. Therefore, we could only explore this route when there is absolute certainty that this will not happen again. There is no such certainty. Moreover, when we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let's just fight.” He’s actually not being very forthright about the “no confidence in the Russians so this could only be done if there were security guarantees” claim, because from the media reports at the time in early 2022, this aspect of the deal was getting concretized. It’s even still up on Ukraine’s official presidency website: https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/na-peregovorah-iz-rosiyeyu-ukrayinska-delegaciya-oficijno-pr-73933 The concept was that permanent members of the UN Security Council would be the guarantors of the deal, alongside Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland and Israel. The issue seems to have been that those security guarantees were “greeted with skepticism” by “Western officials”, as highlighted in this WSJ piece from back then: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-proposal-for-nato-style-security-guarantee-greeted-with-skepticism-11648683375 So this, combined with Arakhamia’s confirmation that what really killed the deal was “Boris Johnson [coming] to Kyiv and [saying] that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let's just fight” shows that it is unequivocally the West that killed the peace deal. Which confirms the extremely damning responsibility of the West in this war because we’re at a stage, 20 months later, when not only has Ukraine lost a horrifying amount of men (likely hundreds of thousands of deaths) but they couldn’t dream of getting such favorable conditions in a peace deal that the West is NOW pressuring them to make. And I won’t even get into the responsibility of the West in triggering this conflict in the first place with the expansion of NATO and the transformation of Ukraine into a Western bulwark on Russia’s border… Will there be any reckoning? Any admission of this responsibility? Any accountability? Any change, any rethinking in order to avoid such catastrophic failures in the future? Sadly I don’t even see the first inkling of the beginning of this, especially in Europe. And this is what makes me most depressed: it shows we're institutionally set in our erroneous ways with no capability to learn, adapt and change.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Putin claimed to have a document outlining a peace agreement with Ukraine, which he showed during negotiations in Istanbul. The agreement was called the Permanent Agreement on Ukraine and Security Guarantees, consisting of 18 articles covering everything from military equipment to personnel. However, Putin did not make the document public. The Ukrainian delegation aimed to prolong the process, while the Russian delegation wanted to pressure Ukraine into signing the agreement, particularly by ensuring Ukraine's non-membership in NATO. Ukraine refused this point due to the need for constitutional changes and lack of trust in Russia's commitment. The lack of preparation and uncertainty led Ukraine to only work towards an agreement with 100% assurance that history would not repeat itself. Boris Johnson's visit to Kyiv further complicated matters, as he stated that no agreements would be signed, suggesting a preference for continued conflict.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Дивіться, Путін же показував документ та за результатом білоруських перемовин а делегації він це де. Де як він стверджує прописаний проєкт мирно угоди з Україною, і на цей документи начебто було пар у Стамбулі. Називався цей документ угоди про постійний не України і гарантії безпеки. Путін казав, що там було 18 статей, і як він сказав, я з за цитую все прописано від бойової техніки до особового складу Збройних сил Зсу. Я, стоїть підпис керівника делегації. Так, Путін стверджував. Speaker 1: Він не оприлюднив. Увагу. Як ви думаєте, чому, якщо в нього був документ, він був оприлюднив вже. Speaker 0: Мета української делегації була затягувати процес. Мета російської делегації, яка була. Speaker 1: Тарас делегації була на мій погляд, показати вони дійсно дійсно до останнього, що вони нас доти тиснуть. На підписання такої угоди. Щоб ми зняли не, це було найбільше для них справа, щоб він вони готові були закінчити війну. Якщо ми Не дамо зобов'язання, що ми не будемо вступати до Нато. Speaker 0: Тільки. Speaker 1: Фактично ключовий був цей. Це інші політичні, типу де російською нас і. Speaker 0: Чому Україна не погодилися на цей пункт? Speaker 1: По-перше для того, щоб на цей пункт погодити треба змінювати конституцію. На шлях нато в Конституції. По-друге, немає довіри не було і немає росіян, що вони це зроблять. Це можна було тільки зробити, якщо є гарантії безпеки. Ми ж не могли щось підписати, відійти, всі, а потім вони більш. Вони було не зайшли насправді не підготовлені, до такого проти. Тому ми могли тільки працювати, коли є 100. Впевнені, що це не повторюється вдруге. А такої впевненості немає. Більш того, коли ми повернули там було, приїхав Борис Джонсон до Києва і сказав, що ми взагалі не будемо з ними нічого підписувати. І давайте будемо просто воювати. Рим ха фільму на на чи гірший гірший на п 2
During the negotiations with Russia, the Ukrainian delegation officially outlined its proposals for a new system of security guarantees for our country — Official website of the President of Ukraine During the talks with Russia in Turkey, the Ukrainian party officially outlined its proposals for a new system of security guarantees for Ukraine. This was announced by Head of the Ukrainian delegation, Head of the Servant of the People faction David Arakhamia. president.gov.ua
Ukraine Proposal for NATO-Style Security Guarantee Greeted With Skepticism In bid to end war with Russia, negotiators for Kyiv offering neutrality for a defense pledge from western countries wsj.com
ThomasHenoekl
Posted - November 29, 2023 at 8:45 PM
Saved - December 2, 2023 at 10:38 PM

@ThomasHenoekl - Thomas Henökl

It is now quite clear that #NATO #US and #UK pushed #Ukraine into #UkraineWar. #EU is accomplice enabling this disaster.

@mazzenilsson - Mats Nilsson

There is a growing body of compelling evidence showing that Russia and Ukraine were involved in serious negotiations to end the war in Ukraine right after it started on 24 February 2022. These talks were facilitated by Turkish President Recep Erdogan and former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and featured detailed and candid discussions on the terms of a possible settlement. By all accounts, these negotiations, which took place in March-April 2022, were making real progress when Britain and the US told Ukrainian President Zelensky to abandon them, which he did. https://open.substack.com/pub/mearsheimer/p/the-myth-that-putin-was-bent-on-conquering?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

The Myth that Putin Was Bent on Conquering Ukraine and Creating a Greater Russia There is a growing body of compelling evidence showing that Russia and Ukraine were involved in serious negotiations to end the war in Ukraine right after it started on 24 February 2022 (see below). These talks were facilitated by Turkish President Recep Erdogan and former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and featured detailed and candid discussions on the terms of a possible settlement. mearsheimer.substack.com
I_Katchanovski
Posted - December 28, 2023 at 4:40 AM
Saved - December 28, 2023 at 2:12 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Ukraine Ambassador Chalyi and others confirm that a peace deal framework, known as the Istanbul Communiqué, was proposed to end the war with Russia. The Communiqué outlined conditions for a ceasefire, Ukrainian neutrality, and international security guarantees. The deal was blocked by the US and UK. The head of Zelensky's party confirms that a peace deal could have been reached if Ukraine agreed to neutrality, but Western countries advised against it.

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Wow! Ukraine Ambassador Chalyi, who participated in peace talks with Russia in Spring 2022, states that "we concluded" "Istanbul Communique" & "were very close in... April to finalize our war with some peaceful settlement" & that Putin "tried everything possible to conclude agreement with Ukraine." He says that it was Putin's "personal decision to accept the text of this communique." Such peace deal framework to end war was also confirmed by head of Ukrainian delegation, officials close to Zelensky, ex-Israeli PM, ex-German chancellor, Putin, Turkish FM, former US officials & Arestovych. First five stated that deal was blocked by US/UK. Thank you @kvk4 for alerting me about this.

Video Transcript AI Summary
I was part of the Ukrainian negotiators trying to reach a peaceful settlement with Russia. We were close to finalizing an agreement in April, but it was postponed. In my opinion, Putin realized his mistake and quickly tried to make a deal with Ukraine. He personally accepted the Istanbul communique, which was a compromise compared to Russia's initial ultimatum proposal. It's important to remember that Putin genuinely wanted a peaceful resolution with Ukraine.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was in that moment in the group of Ukrainian negotiators. We negotiate, with Russian delegation, practically 2 months, in March April, the possible peaceful settlement agreement between Ukraine and Russia. And we, as you remember, concluded so called Istanbul communique. And we were very close in the middle of April, in the end of April to finalize our war with some peaceful settlement. For some reasons, it was postponed. But to my mind, Putin this is my personal view. Putin in 1 week after started his aggression in 24 February last year. Very quickly understood he did mistake and tried to do everything possible to conclude agreement with Ukraine. And Istanbul communicate, it was his personal decision to accept the text of this communique, which totally far away from the initial proposal of Russia, ultimatum proposal of Russia, which they put before the Ukrainian delegation in Minsk. So we managed to find a very real compromise. So Putin really wanted to reach some peaceful settlement with Ukraine. It's very important to remember

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

"There the Ukrainian side pre­sented a ten-point “Istanbul Communiqué” outlining conditions for a cease-fire, perma­nent Ukrainian neutrality and international security guarantees. It also proposed clari­fying the status of Crimea within fifteen years. Remaining points of contention were to be resolved at a meeting of the two presi­dents. The text did not include the Ukrain­ian demand for Russian forces to withdraw to behind the line of contact as of 23 Feb­ruary 2022. The Istanbul Communiqué laid out Ukraine’s position and its response to the original Russian ultimatum. The document offered far-reaching concessions. Participants in the talks emphasised that the Com­muniqué had been pre-agreed by the par­ties and could have formed the basis for a negotiated settlement." https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2022C65/

Peace Talks Between Russia and Ukraine: Mission Impossible President Vladimir Putin escalated Russia’s war on Ukraine in September 2022, announcing a partial mobilisation and repeating his threat to use... swp-berlin.org

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Istanbul Communiqué: "Ukraine's 10-point plan. Proposal 1: Ukraine proclaims itself a neutral state, promising to remain nonaligned with any blocs and refrain from developing nuclear weapons — in exchange for international legal guarantees. Possible guarantor states include Russia, Great Britain, China, the United States, France, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland, and Israel, and other states would also be welcome to join the treaty. Proposal 2: These international security guarantees for Ukraine would not extend to Crimea, Sevastopol, or certain areas of the Donbas. The parties to the agreement would need to define the boundaries of these regions or agree that each party understands these boundaries differently. Proposal 3: Ukraine vows not to join any military coalitions or host any foreign military bases or troop contingents. Any international military exercises would be possible only with the consent of the guarantor-states. For their part, these guarantors confirm their intention to promote Ukraine’s membership in the European Union. Proposal 4: Ukraine and the guarantor-states agree that (in the event of aggression, any armed attack against Ukraine, or any military operation against Ukraine) each of the guarantor-states, after urgent and immediate mutual consultations (which must be held within three days) on the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defense (as recognized by Article 51 of the UN Charter) will provide (in response to and on the basis of an official appeal by Ukraine) assistance to Ukraine, as a permanently neutral state under attack. This aid will be facilitated through the immediate implementation of such individual or joint actions as may be necessary, including the closure of Ukraine’s airspace, the provision of necessary weapons, the use of armed force with the goal of restoring and then maintaining Ukraine’s security as a permanently neutral state. Proposal 5: Any such armed attack (any military operation at all) and all measures taken as a result will be reported immediately to the UN Security Council. Such measures will cease when the UNSC takes the measures needed to restore and maintain international peace and security. Proposal 6: Implementing protections against possible provocations, the agreement will regulate the mechanism for fulfilling Ukraine’s security guarantees based on the results of consultations between Ukraine and the guarantor-states. Proposal 7: The treaty provisionally applies from the date it is signed by Ukraine and all or most guarantor-states. The treaty enters force after (1) Ukraine’s permanently neutral status is approved in a nationwide referendum, (2) the introduction of the appropriate amendments in Ukraine’s Constitution, and (3) ratification in the parliaments of Ukraine and the guarantor-states. Proposal 8: The parties’ desire to resolve issues related to Crimea and Sevastopol shall be committed to bilateral negotiations between Ukraine and Russia for a period of 15 years. Ukraine and Russia also pledge not to resolve these issues by military means and to continue diplomatic resolution efforts. Proposal 9: The parties shall continue consultations (with the involvement of other guarantor-states) to prepare and agree on the provisions of a Treaty on Security Guarantees for Ukraine, ceasefire modalities, the withdrawal of troops and other paramilitary formations, and the opening and ensuring of safe-functioning humanitarian corridors on an ongoing basis, as well as the exchange of dead bodies and the release of prisoners of war and interned civilians. Proposal 10: The parties consider it possible to hold a meeting between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia for the purpose of signing a treaty and/or adopting political decisions regarding other remaining unresolved issues." https://faridaily.substack.com/p/ukraines-10-point-plan

Ukraine's 10-point plan Faridaily obtained a list of the written proposals Ukrainian negotiators delivered to their Russian counterparts in Istanbul on March 29, 2022 faridaily.substack.com

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2zpV35fvHw&t=1677s

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

https://x.com/I_Katchanovski/status/1728157255009198202?s=20

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Wow! In his Ukrainian media interview, head of Zelensky party faction in Ukrainian parliament & head of Ukrainian delegation in Ukraine-Russia talks confirms that peace deal could have been reached in spring 2022 if Ukraine agreed to neutrality. https://youtu.be/6lt4E0DiJts?si=vRNGUtfTg_8ySNj4&t=1479 He said that Russia was ready to end war in such case & that Ukrainian neutrality was main Russian condition. He also confirmed that Western countries knew everything concerning peace talks & told Zelensky not to sign peace deal & that British PM Johnson during his visit told them to continue fighting. P,S. Subtitles can be automatically translated.

david_r_morgan
Posted - January 29, 2024 at 3:14 PM
Saved - January 30, 2024 at 12:44 PM

@david_r_morgan - David Morgan 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 #StayFree

RFK Jr. brilliantly exposes the TRUTH about the Ukraine war in under 40 seconds. You will NOT hear this from any mainstream media outlet. https://t.co/oStYmY9cxv

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Russians sent a small number of troops to Ukraine to pressure them into negotiations. They wanted assurance that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO. After signing a treaty, Putin began withdrawing troops. However, Joe Biden allegedly forced the British prime minister to tear up the treaty during a visit to Ukraine. Since then, a significant number of children have tragically lost their lives.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So then the Russians go in. They only send 40,000 people. It's a nation of 44,000,000 people. They clearly do not intend to conquer Ukraine, but they want us back at the negotiating table. The Russians just want a guarantee that Ukraine won't join NATO. Zelensky signs the treaty. Putin's people sign the treaty, and Putin starts withdrawing the Russian troops in good faith. And what happens? Joe Biden sends Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, over to Ukraine in April and forces him to tear up the treaty. And since then, 450,000 kids have died who none of them should have died.
citizenjournos_
Posted - February 10, 2024 at 10:19 PM
Saved - February 11, 2024 at 9:21 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Timeline: - On 29/3/22, peace deal terms were agreed upon between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul. - Russia began withdrawing troops from Kiev, acknowledged by the Pentagon. - NATO's Atlantic Council misrepresented the withdrawal as a defeat for Russia. - Ukrainian sources confirmed the withdrawal. - Russian forces continued to withdraw for several days. - On 1/4/22, Zelensky portrayed the withdrawal as a defeat for Russia. - On 6/4/22, Russia completed its withdrawal from Kiev. - On 9/4/22, Boris Johnson arrived in Kiev, reportedly urging Zelensky to continue the war. - Johnson provided $130m for the war effort. - The evidence suggests Russia left Kiev to build trust, contradicting Zelensky's portrayal. - Former Israeli PM Bennett claimed NATO aimed to confront Putin. - Johnson's visit likely ended further peace talks.

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

Complete Timeline of Events That Lead to Boris Johnson Scuttling 🇷🇺🇺🇦Peace Deal: 29/3/22: Davyd Arakhamiia, leader of Zelensky's "Servant of the People" party who lead the talks concluded; 'Kiev was ready to accept neutrality...provided binding security guarantees.' 🧵 https://t.co/cBoXiJ92JM

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

On the same day (29/3/22) Russia's Deputy Defence Minister Alexander Fomin said; 'Russia was ready to “fundamentally cut back” military activity near the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv and the northern city of Chernihiv' in a move he said was designed “to increase trust”. https://t.co/VgdPVv2gOu

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

It was at this meeting in Istanbul on 29/3/22 that terms had been agreed upon between Russian and Ukraine for a peace deal that was initialled by both sides. The person who initialled on behalf of Kiev was Davyd Arakhamiia, who lead the Ukrainian delegation. https://t.co/NfqguA8OZD

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker mentions that the draft of the agreement on the permanent neutrality and security guarantees of Ukraine was initialed by the head of the negotiation group from Kyiv. They emphasize that the agreement includes 18 articles on guarantees, with additional appendices covering armed forces and other matters. However, after the speaker's side withdrew their troops from Kyiv as promised, the Kyiv authorities discarded the agreement, as they usually do, without giving it any importance. The speaker tries to express this in a polite and intelligent manner. (Translated from Russian)
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Проект этого договора был парафирован руководителем переговорной группы из Киева. Он поставил там свою подпись. Вот он. Он есть. Так и называется Договор о постоянном нейтралитете и гарантиях безопасности Украины. Именно о гарантиях, о которых Вы сказали, уважаемый друг 18 статей. Более того, к нему есть ещё и приложение. Они касаются и в Вооруженных силах, и других вещей. Всё прописано до единиц боевой техники и до личного состава Вооруженных Сил. Вот этот документ. Парафирован киевской делегацией. Но после того как мы, как и обещали, отвели войска от Киева, киевские власти, как обычно делают их хозяева, выбросили это всё на свалку истории, скажем так, аккуратно и постараюсь интеллигентно выражаться.

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

Russia began withdrawing its troops from Kiev as per their promise made earlier that day in Instanbul. The beginning of the withdrawal was acknowledged by a skeptical John Kirby, Pentagon Spokesman, who said 'Russia’s movement of troops away from Kyiv appeared to be minimal.' https://t.co/s4mSKH388y

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

Following the beginning of the withdrawal of Russian forces from Kiev on the 29/3/22, NATO's Atlantic Council put out a piece that same day selling the move as a "defeat" for Russia, when in fact they would have known it was part of an agreed withdrawal "to increase trust". https://t.co/wHArRez9A0

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

At the same time the Times of Israel recorded that Kiev had also acknowledged a withdrawal of Russian forces from Kiev and Chernihiv, as per Alexander Fomin's promise. "Ukraine confirms withdrawals around capital and Chernihiv, as ceasefire talks appear to produce first fruits" https://t.co/DHf8vuLF8H

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

The withdrawal of Russian forces continued for several days as recorded by NPR on 31/3/22. https://t.co/FoLMhctZR1

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

Following the agreed upon withdrawal of Russian forces from Kiev, Zelensky would, on the 1/4/22, stand in front of a green-screen and sell the withdrawal as a defeat for 🇷🇺 saying the 'occupiers were expelled due to the intensity of hostilities'. https://t.co/1AhnDtAHTj

Video Transcript AI Summary
In the Sumy region, north of Kyiv, the expulsion of the occupiers is ongoing. The intensity of the fighting has decreased, but we must understand that this is part of the Russian military's tactics. They are withdrawing from areas where we are hitting them to focus on other important areas. It is crucial for everyone to remain calm and composed. We all want victory, but there are still battles ahead and a difficult path to achieve what we desire.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: На північ від Києва на Чернігівському напрямку в Сумській області тривають вигнання окупантів. Вони їй самі усвідомлюють, що більше не витягують тієї інтенсивності бойових дій, яку могли забезпечити у першій половині березня. Але повинні усвідомлювати ми і те, що для російських військових це частина їхньої тактики. Все це не просто так. Ми знаємо їхні задуми. Знаємо, що вони планують і що вони роблять. Знаємо, що вони забираються з тих напрямків, де ми їх б'ємо, щоб зосередитися на інших дуже важливих. На тих, де нам може бути дуже складно. Тому дуже важливо для всіх проявляти Стриманість в емоціях, стриманість переживаннях. Ми всі однаково хочемо перемоги, усі однаково. Але попереду Будуть битви. Ще треба пройти дуже складний шлях, щоб ми отримали все те, чого прагнемо.

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

On 6/4/22 Russia had completed its withdrawal from Kiev, as recorded by Reuters citing US officials. https://t.co/Rn4kEFOoRW

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

Then as the Ukrainian delegation returned from talks with Russia in Turkey, Boris Johnson arrived "unexpectedly" in Kiev on the 9/4/22, according to the leader of Zelensky's party David Arahamiya, demanding that peace talks stop and that war continues. https://t.co/8cwUdBprwi

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

David Arahamiya says that Johnson came to Kiev to tell Zelensky not to sign any agreement and "let's just go to war". https://t.co/fkYXnsuwHg

Video Transcript AI Summary
They were ready to end the war if we took a neutral stance like Finland and promised not to join NATO. When we returned to Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said we wouldn't sign anything with them and let's just fight. But as soon as we called on them to sit down, the next day they would already be sitting, waiting with a delegation.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Вони готові були закінчити війну, якщо ми візьмемо, як Фінляндія колись там, нейтралітет, дамо зобов'язання, що ми не будемо вступати до НАТО. Коли ми повернулись до Стамбулу, приїхав Борис Джонсон до Києва і сказав, що ми взагалі не будемо з ними нічого підписувати, і давайте будемо просто воювати. От як тільки ми закличемо їх сісти, наступного дня вони складу делегацією будуть вже сидіти, чекати.

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

The "surprise visit" of Johnson in Kiev on 9/4/22 was again sold as a victory for Kiev and a defeat for Russia as Johnson came bearing a gift of $130m for the war to continue. https://t.co/Fb2nz7O72b

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, hosts world leaders, including British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. He arrived in Kyiv without wearing body armor, symbolizing Ukraine's control. The UK pledges over $130 million in military aid, including 800 anti-tank missiles. Johnson assures Ukraine of economic and defensive support. Ukrainian President Zelensky appreciates the UK's leadership on sanctions, considering them their most sincere friend.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Ukrainian capital, which some predicted would fall to Russian hands weeks ago, now a safe enough venue to host world leaders. Speaker 1: How are you? You know how. How are you? How are you? You're absolute heroes. Speaker 0: A surprise visit from Britain's prime minister Boris Johnson. Speaker 1: I'm traveling on a fantastic Ukrainian railways through to, Kiev from Poland. Speaker 0: Arriving in Kyiv yesterday afternoon, not appearing to wear any body armor. You? The 2 leaders walking through Kyiv city center sending a powerful message. Ukraine is still in control. Britain announcing more than a $130,000,000 in you? Military aid, including 800 anti tank missiles. Speaker 1: We will give you the support that you need, the economic support, but also, of course, the defensive military support. Speaker 0: Zelensky calling the UK our most sincere friend, thanking him for leading on sanction.

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

Putin summarised these events at a meeting with African Leaders in St Petersburg on 28/7/23: "But after we, as promised, withdrew our troops away from Kiev, the Kiev authorities, just as their owners usually do, threw it all onto the rubbish heap of history." https://t.co/imz6CwMjHS

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

Then former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said he was set to broker a peace deal but 'PM Johnson was the most adamant about taking aggressive action against Putin' he went on to say that 'NATO decided it was necessary to continue to smash Putin'. https://t.co/CDjO6clFJn

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

In conclusion, the evidence is very clear that Russia was not pushed out of Kiev by the Zelensky regime but had left "to increase trust" as peace talks had reached an advanced stage. Zelensky selling the retreat as a defeat for Russia went against this spirit of 'trust building'.

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

Then Johnson arrived & put an end to any further talks by telling Zelensky "let's just go to war" and giving him $130m to get on with it. The former Israeli PM said 'NATO decided it was necessary to continue to smash Putin' and Johnson likely delivered that message on 9/4/22.

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

**This thread was inspired after I noticed that I had gotten my timeline wrong on Johnson's visit to Kiev in another thread, and it was important for me to get this right and clarify matters. Apologies for the slight error. https://x.com/citizenjournos_/status/1756073933667701107?s=20

@citizenjournos_ - Citizen Journalists

Boris Johnson arrived in Kiev days after making a surprise visit to Davos. It was so surprising that he was chased after by corporate stenographers asking him why he was there instead of Sunak. He was most likely there receiving his orders to deliver to Zelensky - No Peace Deal! https://t.co/DtwcTea4g9

Video Transcript AI Summary
Sky News interviews Mr. Johnson at Davos and asks about his future in the ministry. They inquire why he is at Davos and if it is important to be there. Mr. Johnson briefly mentions his earlier statement. They also discuss the significance of forums like Davos for global awareness of Ukraine. Mr. Johnson agrees that they do matter.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Sky News here. How are you now? Tell tell us what what's your future in the ministry? Hello? Mister Johnson. Mister Johnson, why are you here in Davos? Speaker 1: You would have you just you would have just Speaker 0: And, mister Johnson, should should should Rishi Sunet really be here? Hello. Hello. Heard Can you mister Johnson, can you just tell us why why you're here in Davos and why it's important to be here in Davos? Speaker 1: Just just just just take in what I said earlier on. Speaker 0: Heard And but do these do these forums matter though in terms of kind of global awareness for Ukraine? Yes. Heard Speaker 1: Yes.
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.
patricksavalle
Posted - June 15, 2024 at 9:34 PM
Saved - September 20, 2025 at 10:19 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I question whether the US/NATO and their Azov proxies were involved in a massacre of civilians in Bucha as a false flag operation to derail peace efforts between Ukraine and Russia. There was a potential peace deal in early 2022, confirmed by Israeli PM Bennett and Ukrainian negotiators, which included Ukraine's commitment to neutrality and recognition of Crimea as Russian. However, after Boris Johnson's visit to Kiev, the deal fell apart. I believe the Bucha incident was staged to blame Russia, despite initial reports celebrating the town's liberation.

@patricksavalle - Patrick Savalle

Did US/NATO and their Azov-proxies massacre hundreds of civilians in a false flag operation at Bucha to sabotage peace? There could have been peace between Ukraine and Russia as early as March/April 2022 but the US/UK did everything to sabotage the peace deal. NYT just now published the draft of failed Russia-Ukraine peace deal. By the end of Februari, a few days into their special military operation, the Russian forces had already reached Kiev. https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220224-images-show-russian-army-24km-outside-kyiv Mid March a peace deal was mediated, and later publicly confirmed, by Israeli PM Bennett. Also confirmed by Ukrainian negotiators Chaly and Arakhamia. Ukraine had agreed to a status of “permanent neutrality” and vowed to not join any military blocs. Kiev also was to recognize Crimea as Russian and the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics as independent states. According to the NYT. As a signal that it was willing to hold up its end of the bargain, Russia withdrew its troops from Kiev begin april. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2988461/russians-retreating-from-around-kyiv-refitting-in-belarus/ According to Arakhamia, Boris Johnson arrived in Kiev after the Ukrainian delegation returned from Istanbul, and suggested not signing anything with the Russians. Peace was possible but made impossible by a US/NATO false flag massacre in Bucha. Perpetrated by their proxies and blamed on Russia. Initially, on March the 31st, the major of the town had made no mention of any massacre but had just celebrated their liberation. On April 1 Azov/Adir Nazis entered Bucha and began staging the hoax, killing scores of pro-Russian civilians in a false flag operation. The evidence is pretty convincing. https://web.archive.org/web/20220407114959/https://www.sott.net/article/466415-Bucha-massacre-when-satellite-images-and-videos-are-manipulated-to-tell-a-false-story

Images show Russian army 27 km from centre of Kyiv The early morning hours of February 24, the Russian army launched its offensive on Ukraine. The extent of the attacks inside Ukraine was unclear for much of the day, both on the internet and on the ground.… observers.france24.com
Bucha massacre - when satellite images and videos are manipulated to tell a false story -- Sott.net As the scandal surrounding the Bucha massacre grows, new elements prove that this episode is indeed worthy of the mass graves of Timisoara, between the disinformation of the New York Time which releases satellite images that do not hold water,... web.archive.org
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

I_Katchanovski
Posted - September 8, 2024 at 9:32 PM
Saved - September 9, 2024 at 6:33 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I was struck by revelations from various officials about the Ukraine-Russia peace talks in spring 2022. Victoria Nuland indicated that the U.S. and U.K. advised against a deal that many Ukrainian officials believed was favorable. Former leaders from Israel and Germany confirmed that Western powers blocked negotiations, urging Ukraine to continue fighting. Ukrainian representatives noted that they were ready for compromises, including neutrality, but were constrained by external pressures. The consequences of these decisions have led to significant loss and destruction in Ukraine.

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Wow! Nuland basically admits that Ukraine-Russia peace deal, which was close to being finalized in spring 2022, “fell apart” because US, UK & other Western governments “advised” Zelensky government that it was not “good deal” even though even members of Ukrainian delegation stated in recent interviews that this was very good deal, best deal that Ukraine could get & “very real compromise” & that Ukrainian delegation celebrated it with champagne. She basically confirms statements by ex-Israeli PM, head of Ukrainian delegation, Ukrainian officials close to Zelensky, ex-German chancellor & Turkish FM that US & UK blocked this peace deal, which was close to being finalized. Victoria Nuland does not mention at all Russian war crimes in Bucha, which were inflated & mispresented by politicians, media & self-proclaimed experts as reason for ending peace talks. The peace deal agreement included withdrawal of Russian forces from all territory of Ukraine, with exceptions of Donbas & Crimea, whose status was to be determined at meeting of Putin & Zelensky, in exchange for neutral status & demilitarization of Ukraine. https://youtu.be/HiS2dg_atfc?si=4L5Aqe0GEbKoQAFu&t=3192…

Video Transcript AI Summary
Naftali Bennett said that Boris Johnson interfered and prevented Ukrainians from signing a deal at the end of negotiations. Ukrainian representative Karakami confirmed that Johnson advised stopping negotiations to win the war militarily. According to Speaker 1, the Ukrainians began asking for advice late in the process. It became clear that Putin's main condition, buried in an annex, would limit the kinds of weapons systems Ukraine could have, effectively neutering it as a military force. Russia would face no similar constraints, such as pulling back or creating a buffer zone. Questions arose about whether it was a good deal, and the deal fell apart.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There was a story first told by former Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennett, that that both sides were really close to the end to the the successful end of the of the new negotiations and then prime minister Boris Johnson interfered and stopped Ukrainians, prevented Ukrainians from from signing the deal. And then, Ukrainian representative Karakami kind of confirmed that that yes. He said in a in an interview that that there was some kind of advice from Boris Johnson to, to stop negotiating and to win this war militarily. Where is the myth? Where where is the truth? Speaker 1: Relatively late in the game, the Ukrainians began asking for advice, on where this thing was going. And it became clear to us, clear to the Brits, clear to others, that Putin's main condition was buried in an annex, to this document that they were working on. Mhmm. And it included limits on the precise kinds of weapons systems that Ukraine could have after the deal. Such that Ukraine would basically be neutered as a military force. And there were no similar constraints on Russia. Russia wasn't required to pull back. Russia wasn't wasn't required to have a buffer zone from the Ukrainian border. It wasn't required to have the same constraints on its military facing Ukraine. And so, people inside Ukraine and people outside Ukraine started asking questions about whether this was a good deal, and it was at that point that it that it fell apart.

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Former Israeli prime minister said that US and other Western leaders blocked #Ukraine & #Russia peace deal which he negotiated on #Zelensky request in March because they wanted to continue to strike Putin. He said that there was good chance of such deal.

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Bombshell: Former Israeli prime minister says that Western leaders blocked #Ukraine & #Russia peace deal which he negotiated on #Zelensky request in March because they wanted to continue to strike Putin. He says that there was good chance of such deal.

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Ukrainian delegation head at Ukraine-Russia talks confirmed that Western countries told Zelensky not to sign peace deal in spring 2022 & said that "Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let's just fight."

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Now head of Zelensky party faction in Ukrainian parliament & head of Ukrainian delegation in Ukraine-Russia talks confirms that peace deal could have been reached in spring 2022 if Ukraine agreed to neutrality. He said that Russia was ready to end the war in such case and that Ukrainian neutrality was main Russian condition. He also confirmed that Western countries told Zelensky not to sign peace deal. His original interview in Ukrainian: https://youtu.be/6lt4E0DiJts?si=lxfniEDY4zqd2Etf&t=1479

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Ex leader of Germany: "At the peace negotiations in Istanbul in March 2022 with Rustem Umerov, the Ukrainians did not agree on peace because they were not allowed to. For everything they discussed, they first had to ask the Americans."

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Wow! Ex leader of Germany confirms revelations by ex Israeli PM & Ukrainian media: "At the peace negotiations in Istanbul in March 2022 with Rustem Umerov, the Ukrainians did not agree on peace because they were not allowed to. For everything they discussed, they first had to ask the Americans. I had two talks with Umerov, then a one-on-one meeting with Putin, and then with Putin's envoy. Umerov opened the conversation with greetings from Zelensky. As a compromise for Ukraine's security guarantees, the Austrian model or the 5+1 model was proposed. Umerow thought that was a good thing. He also showed willingness on the other points. He also said that Ukraine does not want NATO membership. He also said that Ukraine wants to reintroduce Russian in the Donbass. But in the end, nothing happened. My impression was that nothing could happen, because everything else was decided in Washington. That was fatal. Because the result will now be that Russia will be tied more closely to China, which the West should not want. And the Europeans? They have failed. There would have been a window in March 2022. The Ukrainians were ready to talk about Crimea. This was even confirmed by the Bild newspaper at the time. (Gerhard Schroeder shows a page from the BILD newspaper with the title "Finally peace in sight?". It says: "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (44) himself had already hinted at concessions for negotiations: He no longer insists on his country's accession to NATO, he told the US broadcaster ABC. And he is also ready for a 'compromise' on Crimea and the breakaway provinces in the Donbass. 'In every negotiation, my goal is to end the war with Russia,' Zelensky told BILD. In 2022, I received a request from Ukraine asking if I could mediate between Russia and Ukraine. The question was whether I could convey a message to Putin. There would also be someone who would have a very close relationship with the Ukrainian president himself. This was Rustem Umerov, the current Minister of Defense of Ukraine. He is a member of the Crimean Tatar minority. Then the question was: How to end the war?" https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/gerhard-schroeder-im-exklusiv-interview-was-merkel-2015-gemacht-hat-war-politisch-falsch-li.2151196?utm_medium

Gerhard Schröder im Interview: So scheiterten die Friedensverhandlungen zwischen Ukraine und Russland Der Altkanzler spricht über die Israel-Politik von Olaf Scholz, migrantischen Antisemitismus, Baerbocks Moral und wie ein neuer Friedensplan für die Ukraine aussehen könnte. berliner-zeitung.de

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Ukrainian media reported citing Ukrainian officials close to Zelensky that peace deal to end war was abandoned after British PM visited #Ukraine & told #Zelenskyy on behalf of "collective West" not to negotiate with Putin.

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Proxy war & not peace: #Ukrainian media reports that "Russian side was almost ready for the Zelensky-Putin meeting" for peace deal to end #ukrainewar. But it was abandoned after British PM visited #Ukraine & told #Zelenskyy not to negotiate with #Putin. https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/05/5/7344206/

Возможные переговоры Зеленского и Путина стали на паузу после приезда Джонсона – источники Вопрос возможной встречи Зеленского и Путина встал на паузу после того, как в Киев приехал Джонсон и показал, что Запад понял, что Путин не всесильный и что время его дожимать pravda.com.ua

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Ukrainian Ambassador Chalyi, who participated in Ukraine-Russia peace talks in spring 2022, stated that "we concluded" "Istanbul Communique" & "were very close in... April to finalize our war with some peaceful settlement" & this was “very real compromise"

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Wow! Ukraine Ambassador Chalyi, who participated in peace talks with Russia in Spring 2022, states that "we concluded" "Istanbul Communique" & "were very close in... April to finalize our war with some peaceful settlement" & that Putin "tried everything possible to conclude agreement with Ukraine." He says that it was Putin's "personal decision to accept the text of this communique." Such peace deal framework to end war was also confirmed by head of Ukrainian delegation, officials close to Zelensky, ex-Israeli PM, ex-German chancellor, Putin, Turkish FM, former US officials & Arestovych. First five stated that deal was blocked by US/UK. Thank you @kvk4 for alerting me about this.

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Admission by Arestovich, ex-adviser of Zelensky & negotiating group member: “The Russian side still insisted on peace initiatives. And the Istanbul peace initiatives were very good, an intermediary document... Now 200-300 thousand would be alive, probably, and half of Ukraine would not be destroyed and mined... They agreed to political discussions on Crimea... We made concessions, but the amount of their concessions was greater. This will never happen again, it won’t, they will push more and more.”

Video Transcript AI Summary
Российская сторона настаивала на мирных инициативах, и стамбульские мирные инициативы были неплохим промежуточным документом. В НАТО Украина не могла вступить, но вопрос, примет ли НАТО. Сейчас Путин выставляет условие – никакого НАТО. Возможно, 200 тысяч человек были бы живы, и пол-Украины не было бы разрушено. Стоит ли подписать мирное соглашение в Стамбуле? Россияне были согласны на политическую дискуссию по Крыму, что было чуть ли не актом поражения России. Сумма уступок со стороны России была беспрецедентной, и такого уже не будет. Вопрос, надо было или не надо было фиксироваться тогда, будет тревожить современников и историков. **English Translation:** The Russian side insisted on peace initiatives, and the Istanbul peace initiatives were a good interim document. Ukraine could not join NATO, but the question is whether NATO would accept it. Now Putin sets a condition – no NATO. Perhaps 200,000 people would be alive, and half of Ukraine would not be destroyed. Was it worth signing a peace agreement in Istanbul? The Russians agreed to a political discussion on Crimea, which was almost an act of defeat for Russia. The amount of concessions from Russia was unprecedented, and this will never happen again. The question of whether or not it was necessary to fix it then will bother contemporaries and historians.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Российская сторона всё ещё настаивала на мирных инициативах. И стамбульские мирные инициативы были очень, я вам скажу, неплохим промежуточным документом, потому что все многие кричат: Статус на, нейтральный, в НАТО, и так далее. Мы никогда не могли себе это позволить в НАТО, в НАТО, перенато. Но, во-первых, где это НАТО, принимает оно нас или нет? И примет ли. Во-вторых, давайте так. Сейчас-то Путин точно встаёт в качестве новых условий, и выставляют уже фактически. Они сказали никакого НАТО, ни при каких условиях, это для нас красное время. Но только теперь 200 тысяч человек были бы живы? Возможно. И пол-Украины не было бы разрушено заминировано заминировано. Ещё не было никаких шахедов, ещё ничего не летело нам на головы и так далее. Это большой вопрос. Я ни да, ни нет не спешу ответить. Я просто понимаю на долженую планку для обсуждения. Так вот, а не надо ли было подписать мирное соглашение в Стамбуле, потому что такого пакета, в том числе россияне были согласны на политическую дискуссию по Крыму, на секундочку. Это чуть ли не акт поражения России они подписывали. Мы там тоже шли на уступки, но сумма уступок, на которые шли они, я вам скажу, была беспрецедентной. Такого уже никогда не будет, они будут продавливать всё больше и больше. И вопросом надо было или не надо было фиксироваться, тогда это будет вопрос, который будет тревожить и нас, современников, и историков, и ещё очень много.

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

And

@bill_hicks_fan - Georgi

@I_Katchanovski You may want to check this video, from yesterday's UnHerd Interview, in which Arestovych, part of the negotiating team, states that the negotiations were so successful that they popped the champagne. And then Boris came to Kiev.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The negotiating party returned completely, and the negotiations were completely successful. A champagne bottle was opened to celebrate the successful negotiations.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Came back with the negotiating party. Complete completely. Yes. It was successful. We we opened the champagne bottle, you know, for this because it was actually opened a bottle of champagne in Yes. Because it was completely successful negotiations. When this

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Ex US National Security Council official confirms citing "multiple former senior U.S. officials" that Russia & Ukraine agreed in April on peace deal framework of #Russia withdrawing to pre-war positions & #Ukraine promising not to seek #NATO membership. Deal was stopped by UK PM.

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

@ryangrim - Ryan Grim

Victoria Nuland says about as clearly as a diplomat can that the U.S. scuttled the peace deal on the table in March 2022 bc it would have required Ukraine to agree to limits on weapons it would purchase. How many have died since then and for what?

Video Transcript AI Summary
Naftali Bennett said that Boris Johnson interfered and prevented Ukrainians from signing a deal with Russia. Ukrainian representative Karakami confirmed that Johnson advised stopping negotiations to win the war militarily. According to Speaker 1, the Ukrainians began asking for advice late in the negotiation process. It became clear that Putin's main condition, buried in an annex, would limit the kinds of weapons systems Ukraine could have, effectively neutering it militarily. Russia would face no similar constraints, such as pulling back or creating a buffer zone. Questions arose about whether this was a good deal, at which point the deal fell apart.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There was a story first told by former Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennett, that that both sides were really close to the end to the the successful end of the of the new negotiations and then prime minister Boris Johnson interfered and stopped Ukrainians, prevented Ukrainians from from signing the deal. And then, Ukrainian representative Karakami kind of confirmed that that yes. He said in a in an interview that that there was some kind of advice from Boris Johnson to, to stop negotiating and to win this war militarily. Where is the myth? Where where is the truth? Speaker 1: Relatively late in the game, the Ukrainians began asking for advice, on where this thing was going. And it became clear to us, clear to the Brits, clear to others, that Putin's main condition was buried in an annex, to this document that they were working on. Mhmm. And it included limits on the precise kinds of weapons systems that Ukraine could have after the deal. Such that Ukraine would basically be neutered as a military force. And there were no similar constraints on Russia. Russia wasn't required to pull back. Russia wasn't wasn't required to have a buffer zone from the Ukrainian border. It wasn't required to have the same constraints on its military facing Ukraine. And so, people inside Ukraine and people outside Ukraine started asking questions about whether this was a good deal, and it was at that point that it that it fell apart.

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Victoria Nuland, who was then one of top US State Department officials: “But relatively late in the game, the Ukrainians began asking for advice on where this thing was going, and it became clear to us, clear to the Brits, clear to others that Putin's main condition was buried in an Annex to this document that they were working on. And it included limits on the precise kinds of weapons systems that Ukraine could have after the deal, such that Ukraine would basically be neutered as a military force. And there were no similar constraints on Russia. Russia wasn't required to pull back. Russia wasn't required to have a buffer zone from the Ukrainian border, wasn't required to have the same constraints on its military facing Ukraine. And so people inside Ukraine and people outside Ukraine started asking questions about whether this was a good deal, and it was at that point that it fell apart.”

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

"Community Note" is fake. Video: "but I turn to America in this regard, I don’t do as I please. Anything I did was coordinated down to the last detail with the US, Germany and France. So they blocked it? -Basically, yes. They blocked it and I thought they're wrong."

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

My 2022 APSA study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368780422_The_Ukraine-Russia_War_and_Its_Origins "Ukrainian officials close to Zelenskyy revealed that the British prime minister visited Kyiv in April 2022 to block a peace deal with Russia after the Ukrainian government delegation in peace talks with Russia in its written peace plan proposal reportedly agreed to neutrality of Ukraine, no bases and troops from foreign countries, and no nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Putin made a similar statement. Naftali Bennett, the former Israeli prime minister also said that Western leaders, primarily the US and the UK, blocked the Ukraine-Russia peace deal, which he negotiated with Putin on Zelensky’s request in March 2022 and which had about 50% chance of being reached, because they wanted to continue to strike Putin. He says that after Putin promised him not to kill Zelensky and dropped demilitarization of Ukraine demand during his meeting on March 5, 2022, Zelensky dropped NATO membership of Ukraine. “Multiple former senior U.S. officials” confirmed that Russia and Ukraine agreed in April on a peace deal outline (Hill and Stent, 2022)... There have been many more additional civilian casualties as a result of the ongoing war versus a possible peace deal that was close to agreement by the beginning of April 2022."

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Thread https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1832894760257991007.html

Thread by @I_Katchanovski on Thread Reader App @I_Katchanovski: Wow! Nuland basically admits that Ukraine-Russia peace deal, which was close to being finalized in spring 2022, “fell apart” because US, UK & other Western governments “advised” Zelensky government ...… threadreaderapp.com
KimDotcom
Posted - September 9, 2024 at 4:36 AM
Saved - September 9, 2024 at 2:00 PM

@KimDotcom - Kim Dotcom

Look at this mass murdering demon Victoria Nuland laughing in the face of all Ukrainians while admitting that she killed a peace deal with Russia that would have prevented over a million dead and given Ukraine most of its territory back. The last person she sees may be Ukrainian.

@I_Katchanovski - Ivan Katchanovski

Wow! Nuland basically admits that Ukraine-Russia peace deal, which was close to being finalized in spring 2022, “fell apart” because US, UK & other Western governments “advised” Zelensky government that it was not “good deal” even though even members of Ukrainian delegation stated in recent interviews that this was very good deal, best deal that Ukraine could get & “very real compromise” & that Ukrainian delegation celebrated it with champagne. She basically confirms statements by ex-Israeli PM, head of Ukrainian delegation, Ukrainian officials close to Zelensky, ex-German chancellor & Turkish FM that US & UK blocked this peace deal, which was close to being finalized. Victoria Nuland does not mention at all Russian war crimes in Bucha, which were inflated & mispresented by politicians, media & self-proclaimed experts as reason for ending peace talks. The peace deal agreement included withdrawal of Russian forces from all territory of Ukraine, with exceptions of Donbas & Crimea, whose status was to be determined at meeting of Putin & Zelensky, in exchange for neutral status & demilitarization of Ukraine. https://youtu.be/HiS2dg_atfc?si=4L5Aqe0GEbKoQAFu&t=3192

Video Transcript AI Summary
Naftali Bennett said that Boris Johnson interfered and prevented Ukrainians from signing a deal at the end of negotiations. Ukrainian representative Karakami confirmed that Johnson advised stopping negotiations to win the war militarily. According to Speaker 1, the Ukrainians began asking for advice and it became clear that Putin's main condition was in an annex. This condition included limits on the weapons systems Ukraine could have, which would have neutralized them as a military force. Russia would not have similar constraints, such as pulling back or having a buffer zone. People inside and outside Ukraine questioned whether it was a good deal, and that's when it fell apart.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There was a story first told by former Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennett, that that both sides were really close to the end to the the successful end of the of the new negotiations and then prime minister Boris Johnson interfered and stopped Ukrainians, prevented Ukrainians from from signing the deal. And then, Ukrainian representative Karakami kind of confirmed that that yes. He said in a in an interview that that there was some kind of advice from Boris Johnson to, to stop negotiating and to win this war militarily. Where is the myth? Where where is the truth? Speaker 1: Relatively late in the game, the Ukrainians began asking for advice, on where this thing was going. And it became clear to us, clear to the Brits, clear to others, that Putin's main condition was buried in an annex, to this document that they were working on. Mhmm. And it included limits on the precise kinds of weapons systems that Ukraine could have after the deal. Such that Ukraine would basically be neutered as a military force. And there were no similar constraints on Russia. Russia wasn't required to pull back. Russia wasn't wasn't required to have a buffer zone from the Ukrainian border. It wasn't required to have the same constraints on its military facing Ukraine. And so, people inside Ukraine and people outside Ukraine started asking questions about whether this was a good deal, and it was at that point that it that it fell apart.
dbenner83
Posted - November 12, 2024 at 12:13 AM
Saved - November 12, 2024 at 7:57 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I watched Jeffrey Sachs explain how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine, tracing back to promises made in 1990 that NATO wouldn’t expand eastward. He detailed the NATO expansion starting in 1999, US actions in Serbia, and the regime change in Ukraine in 2014. He emphasized that the narrative of Putin as a madman is misleading. Supporting evidence includes documents confirming the US's commitment against NATO expansion, which has been overlooked by the media. Even NATO's own leaders acknowledged Russia's concerns about NATO's eastward movement.

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

🚨 WATCH: Jeffrey Sachs tells the cold, hard truth how the US and NATO provoked war in Ukraine in 4 minutes "It started in 1990, when US Secretary of State James Baker said to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch eastward... The US then cheated on this, starting in 1994, when Clinton signed off on a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine. The expansion of NATO started in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Then, the US led the bombing of Serbia in 1999. That was the use of NATO to bomb a European capital for 78 straight days to break the country apart. The Russians didn't like that very much, but even Putin started out pro-European and pro-American. He considered whether to join NATO when there was still the idea of some kind of mutually respectful relationship. In 2002, the US unilaterally walked out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. What it did was trigger the US putting in missile systems in Eastern Europe that Russia views as a dire, direct threat to national security, by making possible a decapitation strike of missiles that are a few minutes away from Moscow. In 2004-2005, the US engaged in a soft regime change in Ukraine, the so-called First Color Revolution. In 2009, Yanukovych won the election and became president in 2010 on the basis of neutrality in Ukraine. In 2014, the US participated actively in the overthrow of Yanukovych. Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine...talked about regime change. So they made the new government! The US then said 'now NATO's really going to enlarge.' Putin kept saying 'stop, you promised no NATO enlargement.' Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, seven more countries in the 'not one inch eastward.' In 2021, Putin put on the table a draft Russian-US security agreement. The basis of it was no NATO enlargement. The special military operations started, and five days later Zelenskyy said 'okay, okay, neutrality.' And then the US and Britain said no way, you guys fight on. We've got your back. That's 600,000 deaths now of Ukrainians since Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell them to be brave. Absolutely ghastly. We're not dealing with, as we're told every day, this madman like Hitler. This is complete bogus, fake history that is a purely PR narrative of the US government. We're playing games here. So God forbid a nuclear power comes at us. I don't know what's going to happen, but we came at them."

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Ukraine war's roots trace back to 1990, when the U.S. promised not to expand NATO eastward in exchange for German unification. However, NATO began expanding in 1999, leading to tensions with Russia. Initially, Putin was open to cooperation, but U.S. actions, including withdrawing from the anti-ballistic missile treaty and supporting regime change in Ukraine, heightened distrust. In 2014, the U.S. played a role in the overthrow of Ukraine's elected president, Yanukovych, despite Russian objections to NATO's expansion. In December 2021, Putin proposed a security agreement to halt NATO enlargement, but the U.S. rejected it. The conflict escalated, resulting in significant Ukrainian casualties, while the narrative of a madman in Putin is seen as misleading. The situation reflects a complex geopolitical struggle rather than a simple attack.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me just explain in 2 minutes the Ukraine war. This is not an attack by Putin on Ukraine in the way that we are told every day. This started in 1990. James Baker the 3rd, our secretary of state, said to Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will not move 1 inch eastward if you agree to German unification. The US then cheated on this already starting in 1994 when Clinton signed off on a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine. This is when the so called neocons took power. The expansion of NATO started in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic. Then, the US, led the bombing of Serbia in 1999. That was a use of NATO to bomb a European capital, Belgrade, 78 straight days to break the country apart. The Russians didn't like that very much. But even Putin started out pro European, pro American, actually asked maybe we should join NATO, when there was still the idea of some kind of mutually respectful relationship. 911 came, then came, Afghanistan, and the Russians said, yeah. We'll support you. We understand to root out terror. In 2002, the United States unilaterally walked out of the anti ballistic missile treaty. What it did was trigger the US putting in missile systems in Eastern Europe that Russia views as a dire direct threat to national security by making possible a decapitation strike of missiles that are a few minutes away from Moscow. In 2,004, 5, we engaged in a soft regime change operation in Ukraine, the so called first color revolution. But in 2009, Yanukovych won the election, and he became president. And in 2010, on the basis of neutrality for Ukraine. So in February 22, 2014, the United States participated actively in the overthrow of Yanukovych. They intercepted a really ugly call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeffrey Piatt, who's a senior state department official till today. And they talked about regime change. So they made the new government. The US then said, okay. Now NATO's really gonna enlarge, and Putin kept saying, stop. You promised no NATO enlargement. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, 7 more countries in the not 1 inch eastward. On December 15, 2021, Putin put on the table a draft Russia US security agreement. The basis of it is no NATO enlargement. The special military operation started, and 5 days later, Zelensky says, okay. Okay. Neutrality. And then the United States and Britain said, no way. You guys fight on. We got your back. We don't have your front. You're all gonna die, but we got your back. That's 600,000 deaths now of Ukrainians since Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell them to be brave. Absolutely ghastly. We have to understand we're not dealing with, as we're told every day, with this madman like Hitler. This is complete bogus fake history that is a purely PR narrative of the US government. We're playing games here. So God forbid, a nuclear power comes at us. I don't know what's gonna happen, but we came at them.

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

Neocons and NATO shills insist that Gorbachev denied that the US promised not to move NATO eastward, and he did...at times. At other points, he said the opposite, like in this quote. Thankfully, we still have the minutes from the conference to prove it was indeed promised. https://t.co/hUQEEsil2d

Video Transcript AI Summary
Gorbachev has made various statements that seem contradictory. While he has quoted promises made by Americans regarding NATO not expanding beyond Germany after the Cold War, the reality is that many Central and Eastern European countries are now NATO members. This raises questions about trustworthiness. Gorbachev's comments suggest he acknowledges these broken promises, though he may not directly reference Baker’s quote. Ultimately, there are documented minutes from meetings that clarify what was discussed, providing a clearer understanding of the commitments made at that time.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. So here's listen. I get your point there, and particularly the Gorby quote I've heard a lot. There's lots of other, quotes from Gorbachev. So here's another one. Okay? Yeah. And this is it just flies in the face of that one. Right? So clearly, he's on both sides, and I'll send you the link if you want. No. There is there are there are other Gorbachev. Go ahead. The Americans promised that NATO would wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War, but now half of Central and Eastern Europe are members. So what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted. So Gorbachev the Gorbachev may not be referring exactly to that Baker quote. Well, okay. But he's making the point that this was promised. Okay. So Now he's so he's kind of contradicted himself in several different areas. The fact is that you can look at what he said here or look at what he said there. But this is Or you can read the minutes of the meeting, which we have. This So we know exactly what we said. Might be for you.

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

Thanks to a document that resurfaced in 2022, we know that the German diplomat made clear that the Western alliance promised not to move NATO beyond the Elbe and excluded "Poland and the others." This destroys the claim that Baker's comments pertained only to Germany. https://t.co/Hw8rOKHBzq

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

Baker's promise not to move NATO "one inch eastward" is a documented fact in the public record. Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91128, Folder “Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive.” https://t.co/8NP3ZJOIOs

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

This fact was widely acknowledged until recent years, when the corporate media swept it under the rug or called it "disinformation." There was a time when the top diplomats and the coldest Cold Warriors in the US warned against NATO expansion. https://t.co/0wxFeS553n

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

NATO, Ukraine, and the revival of Cold War tensions with Russia have been hot topics recently, but did you know that prominent diplomats and the coldest US Cold Warriors warned against expanding NATO before the first wave of expansion in the 1990s? 🧵 https://t.co/xvDv5WmPXh

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

Even the head of NATO at the time, Jens Stoltenberg, admitted that Putin drew up a draft treaty insisting on no NATO expansion eastward. Then he bragged about how NATO defied his wishes. Basically what they call us "conspiracy theorists" for saying. https://t.co/nAcZLAVNQi

@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons

"Putin sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement, and that was a precondition for him not to invade Ukraine." Said by a Russian agent, right? Nope, that was NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg. https://t.co/bcJsDjK0qS

Video Transcript AI Summary
In autumn 2021, President Putin proposed a draft treaty demanding NATO promise not to expand further and to withdraw military infrastructure from Eastern European member states. This was presented as a condition to avoid invading Ukraine. NATO rejected these demands, leading to increased military presence in Eastern Europe instead. Ultimately, Putin's actions resulted in the opposite of his intentions, with NATO expanding closer to Russia's borders.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021 and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what what he sent us. And that was that that was a precondition for not invade, Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign a promise never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in in all allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe. We should remove NATO from from that of of our alliance, introducing some kind of E and B or second class membership. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent, NATO, more NATO close to its borders. He has he he has got the exact opposite. He has got more NATO presence in the eastern part of the alliance.
BGatesIsaPyscho
Posted - November 20, 2024 at 1:12 PM
Saved - November 20, 2024 at 9:49 PM

@BGatesIsaPyscho - Concerned Citizen

“It’s a war that should never have happened” “Billions of dollars aren’t going to Ukraine - it’s going to Blackrock” Legacy Media have lied about the Ukrainian conflict from day 1 - listen to RFK Jnr tell the truth about it https://t.co/1Wrk2reksn

Video Transcript AI Summary
This war should never have happened. Russia sought terms favorable to Ukraine, primarily to keep NATO out. Military contractors benefit from NATO expansion, ensuring a market for their weapons. Since March 2022, the U.S. has committed over $113 billion to Ukraine, with more requested, while the real beneficiaries are American defense manufacturers. Mitch McConnell suggested this funding is a money laundering scheme, with BlackRock owning many of these companies. Loans to Ukraine come with harsh conditions, including austerity and the sale of government assets, particularly valuable agricultural land. Despite the sacrifices of Ukrainians, 30% of this land has already been sold to companies like DuPont and Cargill, also linked to BlackRock. The rebuilding contracts for Ukraine have gone to BlackRock, revealing a strategy to maintain divisions among us while profiting from the conflict.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is a war that should have never happened. It's a war that Russians tried repeatedly to settle on terms that were very, very beneficial to Ukraine and us. The major thing they wanted was for us to keep NATO out of the Ukraine. The big military contractors want to add new countries to NATO all the time. Why? Because then that country has to conform its military purchases to NATO weapon specifications, which means certain companies, North Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics Boeing, and Lockheed get a trapped market. March of 2022, we committed a $113,000,000,000. Just to give you an example, we could have built a home for almost every homeless person in this country. We then committed another 24,000,000,000 since that 2 months ago, and now president Biden's asking for another 60,000,000. But the big, big expenses are gonna come after the war when we have to rebuild you all the things that we destroyed. Mitch McConnell was asked, and we really afford to send spend a 113,000,000,000 to Ukraine. He said, don't worry. It's not really going to Ukraine. It's going to American defense manufacturers. So he just admitted it's a money laundering scheme. And who do you think owns every one of those companies? BlackRock. BlackRock. So Tim Scott, during the republican debate, said, don't worry. It's not a gift to Ukraine. It's a loan. Raise your hand if you think that that loan is ever getting paid back. Yeah. Of course, it's not. So why do they call it a loan? Because if they call it a loan, they can impose loan conditions. And what are the loan conditions that we impose on? Number 1, a extreme austerity program so that if you're poor in Ukraine, you're gonna be poor forever. Number 2, most important, Ukraine has to put all of its government owned assets up for sale to multinational corporations, including all of its agricultural land, the biggest single asset in Europe, in Ukraine. There's been a 1000 years of war fought over that land. It's the richest farmland in the world. It's the breadbasket of Europe. 500,000 kids almost. Ukrainian kids have died to keep that land as part of Ukraine. They almost certainly didn't know about this long condition. They've already sold 30% of it. The buyers were DuPont, Cargill, and Monsanto. Who do you think owns all of those companies? BlackRock. Yeah. BlackRock. And then in December, president Biden gave out the contract to rebuild Ukraine. And who do you think got that contract? BlackRock. So they're doing this right in front of us. They don't even care that we know anymore because they know that they can get away with it. And how do they know that? Because they have a strategy. And that strategy is old, old strategy, which is they keep us at war with each other. They keep us hating on each other. They keep the Republicans and Democrats fighting each other and black against white and all these divisions that they sell.
JimFergusonUK
Posted - February 19, 2025 at 5:41 PM
Saved - February 20, 2025 at 1:08 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I just learned from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that Biden allegedly blocked a peace deal in Ukraine back in April 2022. He claims Biden sent Boris Johnson to pressure Zelensky into abandoning an already agreed-upon deal with Russia. This raises serious questions about the motives behind the war—suggesting that Biden and NATO preferred conflict over peace. The narrative implies that the ongoing flow of weapons and financial support was aimed at regime change in Russia, rather than defending democracy. How many more revelations will it take for people to see the truth?

@JimFergusonUK - Jim Ferguson

🚨 RFK JR. DROPS BOMBSHELL—BIDEN BLOCKED UKRAINE PEACE DEAL IN 2022! 🚨 🔴 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has just EXPOSED the truth about the war in Ukraine: The conflict could have ended in April 2022, but Biden STOPPED IT! 🔴 According to RFK Jr., Joe Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to FORCE Zelensky to tear up a peace deal that had ALREADY been agreed upon with Russia. 🔥 Think about that—peace was within reach, but the war machine needed it to continue! 🔥 📢 WHAT THIS MEANS: ⚠️ Biden and NATO wanted war, not peace. ⚠️ The endless flow of weapons and billions in taxpayer money was ALWAYS the goal. ⚠️ Millions of lives have been destroyed because Washington wanted regime change in Russia! 💥 How many MORE revelations need to come out before people realize this war was NEVER about “defending democracy”?! 💥 🚨 Will Biden and his war-hungry globalists be held accountable for prolonging this war? 🚨

Video Transcript AI Summary
In April 2022, Biden dispatched Johnson to Ukraine to pressure Zelensky into abandoning a peace agreement with Russia. This agreement, which would have kept Donbas and Lugansk within Ukraine, was reached as Russia began withdrawing troops. Simultaneously, Biden declared his aim was regime change in Russia, while Defense Secretary Austin stated the U.S. sought to exhaust the Russian army. These objectives diverge significantly from the stated goal of protecting Ukraine's sovereignty.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In April 2022, president Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to force president Zelensky to tear up a peace agreement that he and the Russians had already signed, and the Russians were withdrawing troops on Kyiv and Donbas and Lugansk. And that peace agreement would have brought peace to the region and would have allowed Donbas and Lugansk to remain part of Ukraine. President Biden stated that month that this object that his objective in the war was regime change in Russia. His defense secretary Lloyd Austin simultaneously explained that America's purpose in the war was to exhaust the Russian army to degrade its capacity to fight anywhere else in the world. These objectives, of course, have nothing to do with what they were telling Americans about protecting Ukraine's sovereignty.
CilComLFC
Posted - February 26, 2025 at 10:23 PM
Saved - February 28, 2025 at 9:17 PM

@CilComLFC - Cillian

🇷🇺 WOW! Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov goes NUCLEAR: “In April 2022, we were hours away from signing a full peace deal, but Boris Johnson STOPPED Ukraine. Ukraine was ready to sign, but they were forbidden by London and Washington.” Millions of people died for NOTHING. https://t.co/Fwd7cilkce

Video Transcript AI Summary
I have said many times that in Istanbul three years ago, we were very close to signing a full agreement. However, Boris Johnson prevented Ukraine from signing it. A Ukrainian official confirmed in an interview that they were ready to sign three years ago, but London and Washington forbade them from doing so.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Vladimir Putin, president of the Russian Federation, has said that many times, reminding in Istanbul, Three Years ago, we were maybe one hour away from signing a full scale agreement. But Boris Johnson banned Ukraine from doing that. And in an interview, the Ukrainian official publicly confirmed this fact that three years ago they had been ready to sign, but they they were forbidden to do that By London and Washington.
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.
ivan_8848
Posted - November 1, 2025 at 12:29 PM
Saved - November 1, 2025 at 11:42 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I argue the Ukraine-Russia war was provoked by NATO expansion and US policies: Brzezinski’s plan to surround Russia, the ABM withdrawal, Kosovo bombings, and the 2014 coup undermining Yanukovych. NATO’s encirclement and Ukraine’s de facto membership pushed Russia to act. A neutral Ukraine could end it; negotiators in Istanbul showed a path Europe blocked. Jeffrey Sachs and Mearsheimer cite NATO enlargement as the core provocation.

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

🚨THE UKRAINE -RUSSIAN WAR WAS PROVOKED NATO DID NOT PROMOTE PEACE, NATO PROMOTED WARS How did this start? Zbigniew Brzezinski in the United States said, "We can surround Russia. We can weaken Russia. We can make Russia fall into pieces." He literally wrote in 1997, he said, "Oh, there'll be a confederation of three weak states, a European Russia, Siberian Russia, Far East Russia." This, this was a senior advisor to the US. They decided 30 years ago, we're gonna surround Russia in the Black Sea, we're going to weaken Russia, we're going to put our military all around Russia. They broke the nuclear balance and nuclear arms control framework in 2002. This was the worst move of all. United States walked out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. And the Russians said, "Oh. You, you wanna have a first strike? You'll attack us in a decapitation strike and then you'll use your anti-ballistic missile system to prevent deterrents." In 2002, the United States just walked out of the ABM Treaty and the Russians said, "Excuse me? What, what, what the hell are you doing? This is our balance." And it came in the context of NATO enlargement. It came in the context of the United States bombing Belgrade for 78 straight days in 1999 to break Serbia in two, but in Kosovo, that region broken apart from Serbia, to put the largest NATO military base in Southeastern Europe, "Camp Bondsteel", in that base. So, the Russians are saying, "Are you kidding? You bomb Belgrade, you expand NATO even though you promised not to do so, you walk out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the list goes on and on. You attack Iraq on completely phony pretenses, you launch a CIA operation to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, you send NATO to overthrow Gaddafi, late in, 2011, and you say NATO's gonna expand to Ukraine and to Georgia. You blame Russia for this? This was an America drunk with its power, saying we can do anything we want and with a plan, and the plan third-rate or fourth-rate or fifth-rate country or to break it was to turn Russia into a apart. On February 21st, 2014, three foreign ministers of the European Union negotiated with Mr. Yanukovych that he would stay in power and that there would be elections eight months later, and this was also agreed with President Putin. The next morning, a US-backed coup violently overthrew Yanukovych, and it took the United States a nanosecond to say, "We support the new government." Europe, because it's so filled with principles, "No, no, no. Yanukovych is president." No, of course it didn't say that. It said, "Whatever daddy said."So, daddy said that it's, now a new government brought in by a coup, and Europe suddenly couldn't even remember 24 hours that it negotiated an agreement with Yanukovych that he would stay in power. And they said, "No, no. He resigned." Oh, we don't think Russia should stay in Crimea anymore." It's been Russia's naval fleet since 1783. The coup is not a coincidence. The coup is to get Russia out of Sevastopol. That's the point. It was the reason why there was a Crimean War in 1853 when Britain and France said, "Get Russia out of the Black Sea." It was Brzezinski's idea in 1997. When Trump comes in in the first term, US pours in the military aid and builds up a million-person army, the largest in Europe actually. What happened when Russia invaded in February 24th, 2022? Within about a week, Zelenskyy said, "Okay, we can be neutral, we can be neutral." And the Ukrainians sent a note to the Russians, "Neutral. We, we don't need the NATO invasion. You stop fighting, we'll declare neutrality." I know in detail this story because I talked to the negotiators at length, and to the Turkish mediators, because a process started in Istanbul to have Ukraine and Russia sit down with each other. And on April 15th, they initialed a document which was almost complete. What happened? The United States and Britain walked in and told the Ukrainians, "No, you continue fighting." The European mainstream media blocks the most basic facts on all of this. This, war could have ended so many times it avoided entirely. Now Europe is in this unbelievable warmongering period led by the German chancellor, of all people and all countries, absolutely unpleasant, Merz, Macron, Starmer. In 2023, I had a conversation with President Macron. And I said, "Mr. President, this war came from NATO enlargement." He said, "You're absolutely right." I said, "Mr. President, this war could end if NATO would just be clear that it's not going to enlarge Ukraine." "You're absolutely right." Yes, nice conversation. He said exactly the opposite in public, and until today says exactly the opposite. --------------------------------------------------- *In 2001, Putin Wanted Russia to Join NATO. Two Times That We Were Ready to Join NATO. Both times we were turned down. Ukraine is the only NON-NATO nation supporting every NATO mission. In Afghanistan and Iraq Ukrainian troops are helping to support democracies. Putin says the current crisis in Ukraine is a direct result of years of aggressive NATO policies. ▶The biggest threat in the world is NATO. ▶NATO has been encircling Russia since the nineties. ▶NATO exists to solve the problems created by NATO’s existence. ▶ NATO has never defended anyone, but only attacked. ▶NATO is a military Alliance that feeds on war. ▶To justify its existence, NATO constantly needs an external enemies and conflicts. ▶The purpose of the NATO alliance is "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. ▶Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The Casus Belli of the Ukraine War is NATO Enlargement, US Coup, CIA Operations All Over Ukraine. ▶Jeffrey Sachs on Trump: Until President Trump Says Publicly, "NATO Will NOT Enlarge," This War Will Continue. That's his JOB. The way to end this war is to say publicly, "NATO enlargement was a mistake, it was a provocation, it was a threat to Russia's security." ▶Jeffrey Sachs: Russia is not going to stop fighting as long as NATO enlargement is on the table. This is the basic reason why we are at war. ▶Prof. John Mearsheimer: NATO Expansion Was Really the Key. Ukraine was becoming a de facto member of NATO. ▶Larry C. Johnson A former CIA Officer: 30 Years of Provocation by the West, 30 Years of Western Efforts to Bring Ukraine INTO NATO, 30 Years of Using, Making, Ukraine a de FACTO Member of NATO by Virtue of the FACT That, They've Conducted More NATO Military Exercises in Ukraine, Than 24 Other NATO Countries Over the Last 30 years, so That's Remarkable for a Country That's NOT 🚨Not dissolving NATO in 1990 was a big mistake, and it’s time to fix that mistake.

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

https://t.co/JWdcFCvgV8

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

Of course, the Mexicans are not so crazy to do it, but the Ukrainians are, I'm sorry to say. Jeffrey Sachs: My view is completely different, which is that if you're Ukraine, you be different, which is that if you're Ukraine, you be neutral, and it's your neutrality that protects you, protects Europe, and protects Russia. It's what's called indivisible security. A neutral Ukraine is the safest possible thing for Ukraine to start with but it also protects Europe. It also protects Russia.

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

https://t.co/kkAngDI655

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

Jeffrey Sachs: Until the coup, the public was against NATO. Yanukovych, who was the president overthrown in this US-backed coup, knew, "This is not smart for us. If we go down that road, we're gonna be a war zone." The Europeans are even more warmongers than the Americans right now.

MarioNawfal
Posted - November 27, 2025 at 1:00 AM
Saved - November 27, 2025 at 10:49 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I argue that Russia backed Minsk in 2015, which would have kept Ukraine intact while granting Donbas autonomous rights, Russian language protections, and optional trade with Russia, and would have kept Ukraine out of NATO. The idea that Russia seeks conquest is undermined by this. Western saboteurs supposedly pushed NATO down Ukraine’s throat. Ukraine’s neutrality was long supported in polls and enshrined in its sovereignty declaration.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🚨INTERVIEW: “MINSK PROVES RUSSIA NEVER WANTED TO CONQUER UKRAINE - WEST SABOTAGED PEACE TO SHOVE NATO DOWN THEIR THROAT” “Russia was on board with the Minsk Accords, which were brokered in February 2015. The Minsk Accords would have left all of Ukraine intact. Ukraine would have kept the Donbas. All Ukraine had to do was pass some laws in its parliament, enshrining autonomous rights for the ethnic Russian regions of the Donbas, letting them speak the Russian language, letting them select their own judges, letting them have trade with Russia if they wanted to. And yes, that Minsk Accord, if it had been implemented, would have kept Ukraine out of NATO. So this idea that Russia's bent on conquest, not only in Ukraine, but everywhere, is just totally undermined by the available evidence. Russia was fine with even the Donbass staying in Ukraine, just as long as the cultural rights of ethnic Russians in the Donbass were respected, and if Ukraine stayed out of NATO. And if you want to say that that's imperialist for Russia to demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, well, would we ever accept Canada or Mexico being in a hostile military alliance led by Russia and China? Of course not. And by the way, Ukraine not being in NATO was for a long time the majority public position inside of Ukraine, if you look at polls. And it was enshrined in Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty, which said that Ukraine will be a permanently neutral state.” @Aaronjmate Journalist & "Pushback" host for The Grayzone

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: He asks about comparisons to World War II and what Hitler did in Czechoslovakia. Initially, he takes some territory. He appeased Putin the same way they appeased Hitler. But then, especially if he takes the defensive line in Donbas, which Ukraine still holds at the moment, it puts Putin in a better position to continue invading more and more territory out of Ukraine over the next ten, fifteen years rather than trying to achieve it all in the next few months or next couple of years? Speaker 1: It’s wildly insulting to compare Putin to Hitler for obvious reasons. But regarding territory, for seven years before Russia invaded, Russia was on board with the Minsk Accords, brokered in February 2015. The Minsk Accords would have left all of Ukraine intact; Ukraine would have kept the Donbas. All Ukraine had to do was pass some laws in its parliament enshrining autonomous rights for the ethnic Russian regions of the Donbas, letting them speak the Russian language, letting them select their own judges, letting them have trade with Russia if they wanted to. And yes, that Minsk accord, if it had been implemented, would have kept Ukraine out of NATO. So this idea that Russia’s bent on conquest not only in Ukraine but everywhere is totally undermined by the available evidence. Russia was fine with even the Donbas staying in Ukraine as long as the cultural rights of Ukrainians of ethnic Russians in the Donbas were respected and if Ukraine stayed out of NATO. And if you want to say that that’s imperialist for Russia to demand the Ukraine side of NATO, would we ever accept Canada or Mexico being in a hostile military alliance led by Russia and China? Of course not. And by the way, Ukraine not being in NATO was, for a long time, the majority public position inside of Ukraine, if you look at polls, and it was enshrined in Ukraine’s declaration of state sovereignty, which said that Ukraine will be a permanently neutral state. So these were not radical demands by Putin at all. It was just ultraradicals in Ukraine—the ultranationalists, like groups like the Azov battalion, Right Sector, Vubota—which refused to accept the compromise of Minsk. You read the memoir of Angela Merkel; they all say the same thing. It was a hostility inside of Ukraine that prevented Minsk from being implemented. And had Minsk been implemented, I think you would have avoided this war. So in short, the idea that Putin has territorial designs in Ukraine is undermined by the available evidence, which then shows how completely idiotic it is to believe he has territorial designs beyond Ukraine as well.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What about people that compare this to World War two and what Hitler did in Czechoslovakia? So, initially, he takes some territory. He appeased Putin the same way they appeased Hitler. But then especially if he takes those the defensive line this defensive line in in Donbas, which Ukraine still holds at the moment, it puts Putin it emboldens Putin and puts him in a better position to continue, invading more and more territory, annexing more and more territory out of Ukraine over the next ten, fifteen years rather than trying to achieve it all in the next few months or next couple of years? Speaker 1: I think it's wildly insulting to compare Putin to Hitler for obvious reasons. But just looking at the issues of territory, for ten years for for nine years sorry. For for seven years before Russia invaded, Russia was on board with the Minsk Accords, which were brokered in February 2015. The Minsk Accords would have left all of Ukraine intact. Ukraine would have kept the Donbas. All Ukraine had to do was pass some laws in its parliament enshrining autonomous rights for the, ethnic Russian regions of the Donbas, letting them speak the Russian language, letting them select their own judges, letting them have trade with Russia if they wanted to. And, yes, that Minsk, accord, if it had been implemented, would have kept Ukraine out of NATO. So this idea that, like, Russia's bent on conquest, not only in Ukraine but everywhere, it's just totally undermined by the available evidence. Russia was fine with even the Donbas staying in Ukraine just as long as the, cultural rights of Ukrainians of ethnic Russians in the Donbas were respected and if Ukraine stayed out of NATO. And if you wanna say that that's imperialist for Russia to demand the Ukraine side of NATO, well, would we ever accept Canada or Mexico being in a hostile military alliance led by Russia and China? Of course not. And by the way, Ukraine not being in NATO was, for a long time, the majority public, position inside of Ukraine if you look at polls, and it was enshrined in Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty, which said that Ukraine will be a permanently neutral state. So these were not radical demands by Putin at all. It was just ultraradicals in Ukraine, the ultranationalist, like groups like the Azov battalion, right sectors, Vubota, which refused to accept the compromise of Minsk. You read the the memoir of Angela Merkel, they all say the same thing. It was a hostility inside of Ukraine that prevented Minsk from being implemented. And had Minsk been implemented, I think you would have avoided this war. So in short, the idea that Putin has territorial designs in Ukraine is undermined by the available evidence, which then shows how just completely idiotic it is to believe he has territorial designs beyond Ukraine as well.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🚨INTERVIEW: AARON MATE ON UKRAINE’S PEACE DEAL & VENEZUELA’S REGIME CHANGE Will Ukraine accept Trump’s peace deal? Do they have a choice? @Aaronjmate argues Ukraine is running out of men, out of money, out of allies, and out of time, while war hawks fight to keep a losing war alive. We get into: •⁠ ⁠Why Ukraine is so desperate they are dragging young men off the streets to fill the front •⁠ ⁠Why desertion is skyrocketing even according to pro-Western think tanks •⁠ ⁠Why Trump’s first peace plan terrified Washington •⁠ ⁠How the bipartisan war machine watered it down within hours •⁠ ⁠Why Russia has the manpower, territory and momentum to keep advancing •⁠ ⁠Why Minsk and Istanbul show peace was possible but intentionally blocked •⁠ ⁠How Europe is being humiliated, sidelined and forced to pay the bill •⁠ ⁠How Venezuela suddenly became the next potential intervention target Maté says the West is staring at a strategic disaster. Ukraine is collapsing. Russia is pushing forward. Europe is fracturing. And the political elite is clinging to a proxy war with no path to victory. If this continues, the fallout will not stop at Ukraine. The balance of global power is shifting in real time. 01:46 - Trump's 28-point peace plan meets Ukraine's 19-point counter-proposal 05:23 - For lasting peace, both sides need incentive to negotiate rather than keep fighting 06:02 - Ukraine struggling: running out of money, running out of men, losing global support 09:17 - Appeasing Putin like Hitler: giving up Donbas today means more invasions tomorrow 11:45 - Trump's carrot-stick strategy: flipped from criticizing Zelensky to threatening Putin 14:30 - Europe humiliated and sidelined: Macron contradicts peace plan on troop deployment 16:44 - Trump pushed back on Netanyahu in Middle East - could he break with allies on Ukraine? 19:16 - Will Ukraine accept giving up Donbas territory it's slowly losing anyway? 22:47 - U.S. mediating between NATO and Russia - signals decoupling from alliance? 29:54 - Ukraine gave up nukes for security guarantees Russia violated - why trust them now? 35:04 - Bizarre reconstruction deal: U.S. gets half of $100B Russian assets, Europe pays $100B more 38:55 - Europe forced to rearm as U.S. shows it won't always have their backs 40:06 - After massive military buildup in Venezuela, Trump's tough guy image makes backing down nearly impossible 46:23 – U.S. sanctions turn Venezuelans against their own government 50:16 - Only 34% of Venezuelans support U.S. intervention - pro-opposition 85% claim is pure propaganda 55:51 - Middle East reality check: Gaza ceasefire collapsing, Hezbollah won't disarm

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🚨🇺🇸 THE EPSTEIN FILES: THE EMAILS, THE NAMES, AND THE POWERFUL PEOPLE FIGHTING TO BURY THEM The first batch of Epstein emails just dropped. And they are already shaking Washington. One email calls Trump “the dog that hasn’t barked yet.” Another references a mysterious “Bubba” https://t.co/nMxzzIcYS3

View Full Interactive Feed