reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I went to Kyiv to announce a $1 billion loan guarantee, but only if they took action against the state prosecutor. When they didn't, I refused to give them the money. They said I had no authority, so I told them to call the president. I made it clear that if the prosecutor wasn't fired within 6 hours, they wouldn't get the money. And guess what? He got fired. They made some significant changes institutionally and with people.

I was assigned to handle the Ukraine situation and convince our team to provide loan guarantees. I had multiple meetings with Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk, where they promised to take action against the state prosecutor. However, they didn't follow through. When they were about to announce the $1 billion loan guarantee, I told them they wouldn't receive the money unless the prosecutor was fired. They argued that I didn't have the authority, but I stood my ground. I warned them that if the prosecutor wasn't fired within 6 hours, they wouldn't get the money. Eventually, the prosecutor was fired.

As of February 2024, Speaker 0 asks if the person in question has the freedom to directly communicate with the speaker or their government to resolve the ongoing issues. Speaker 1 responds that the person considers themselves the head of state and won the elections. They believe that the coup d'etat in 2014 is the main source of power. Despite flaws in the government, the person is recognized as the president by the United States, Europe, and most of the world. Speaker 1 mentions negotiations with Ukraine in Istanbul, where the person was aware and even signed a preliminary document. However, they claim that former British Prime Minister Johnson dissuaded them from signing, leading to a sense of ridicule and sadness.

America's involvement in Ukraine is questioned due to corruption and censorship. The speaker criticizes the US agenda on Ukraine, citing the impact on free speech and democracy. The conversation touches on the censorship industry, NATO's response to the Ukraine crisis, and the manipulation of information. The speaker refuses to support US actions in Ukraine until the censorship system is dismantled.

Elon Musk denied Starlink services to the Ukrainian military's submarines as they planned to attack the Russian Navy. Despite providing Ukraine with $1 billion worth of free Starlink services, Musk refused to extend it further, fearing it would escalate the conflict. He believed that complying with the request would make SpaceX complicit in an act of war. Musk's decision led to accusations of treason and calls for the US government to seize his company. However, it is important to question whether private companies or foreign governments have an obligation to fulfill every demand of the Ukrainian military. Refusing such demands does not necessarily make one pro-Russian.

Ukraine is hitting legitimate targets and the U.S. is supporting that. Ukraine will not be safe unless Crimea is at a minimum demilitarized. The speaker will not prejudge how Ukraine chooses to deal with Crimea in the short, medium, or long term. The U.S. recognizes Crimea as Ukraine.

I went to Kyiv to announce a $1 billion loan guarantee, but only if they took action against the state prosecutor. When they didn't, I refused to give them the money. They said I had no authority, so I told them to call the president. I made it clear that if the prosecutor wasn't fired within 6 hours, they wouldn't get the money. And guess what? He got fired. They made some significant changes institutionally and with people.

As secretary of state, I was deeply involved in getting rid of a prosecutor in Ukraine. The entire administration, including Obama, the vice president, and myself, worked towards this goal. We knew that for Ukraine to succeed and win the revolution, they had to remove the prosecutor. I made it clear to them that if the prosecutor wasn't fired, they wouldn't receive $1,000,000,000 in funding. Eventually, the prosecutor was fired, and Ukraine achieved their objective.

I was assigned to convince our team to provide loan guarantees to Ukraine. I traveled to Kyiv multiple times and was supposed to announce a $1 billion loan guarantee. However, the Ukrainian leaders didn't take action against the State Prosecutor as promised. In response, I told them they wouldn't receive the money unless the prosecutor was fired. They called me out, saying I didn't have the authority, but I stood my ground. Eventually, the prosecutor was fired and replaced with someone reliable.

America's involvement in Ukraine's war is questioned due to past corruption and censorship. The speaker highlights how the Ukraine crisis led to NATO redefining warfare as information control. This shift influenced censorship tactics in the US, impacting freedom of speech and democracy. The speaker firmly rejects supporting US actions in Ukraine until the censorship system is dismantled.

I went to Kyiv multiple times to convince our team to provide loan guarantees. On one occasion, I was supposed to announce a $1 billion loan guarantee, but only if action was taken against the State Prosecutor. When they didn't follow through, I told them they wouldn't receive the money. They claimed I had no authority, so I said to call the president. I made it clear that if the prosecutor wasn't fired within 6 hours, they wouldn't get the money. Eventually, they fired the prosecutor and replaced them with someone reliable.

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk confirmed blocking access to his Starlink satellite network in Crimea, which has raised questions about potential repercussions. One speaker defends Musk's decision, claiming he prevented a larger conflict by refusing to accept demands from Zelensky. The other speaker dismisses any concerns and accuses the CNN reporter of being biased, suggesting CNN benefits from escalating wars.

As secretary of state, the speaker was deeply involved in getting rid of a Ukrainian prosecutor, along with the rest of the Obama administration. Everyone from Obama to the secretary of state to the vice president was working on it because they believed Ukraine needed to get rid of the prosecutor to survive and win the revolution. The speaker then recounts telling someone they were not getting a billion dollars. The person responded that the speaker lacked the authority, but the speaker stated the president authorized the message. The speaker told them the money would be withheld if the prosecutor was not fired within six hours, and the prosecutor ultimately was fired.

Elon Musk confirmed blocking access to his Starlink satellite network in Crimea, which raises questions about potential repercussions. However, one speaker dismisses any concerns, claiming that Musk's actions actually prevented a larger conflict. The other speaker, who works for CNN, seems skeptical and suggests that there may be more to the situation.

The speaker notes that they are not the pen pal but the phone pal of Poroshenko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and now the speaker themselves. For the last four years, they have been on the phone two to three hours a week with those folks. There is an overwhelming instinct in Europe to say, before you guys became president, this was owned by Russia anyway. They ask, what difference does it make? Why are you making us engage in these sanctions? The speaker recalls last year, they were authorized to say they’d do the second tranche of a billion dollars, and he didn’t fire his chief prosecutor. Because the speaker has the confidence of the president, they were there. They said, “I’m not signing it. Until you fire him, we’re not signing it.” They clarified, “We’re not doing it.” Until you form a new government and you actually bring in someone who will move on this, they’re not playing. It’s not because they’re trying to play hardball, but because they know if they give an excuse to the EU, there are at least five countries right now that want to say, wooah, want out. What they are putting together now is a basic detailed road map of who goes first and who goes second. There are two pieces: one is the security guarantees that are to flow from Russia, and two, the political steps that Ukraine has to take. Some of the steps are very difficult to take. They’ve already done the energy piece, they’ve done some other things, but the point is that when you say the dumb boss is gonna have a special status and you’re gonna amend your constitution, it’s like saying, okay, you know, Texas and Wyoming—Texas is gonna have a special status that we don’t want because we want Mexico to have more influence in Texas. And we’re gonna pass that through the United States Congress. So there are some really tough stuff they’ve gotta do. They’re willing, and the speaker is convinced they will do it.

The conversation centers on punitive measures allegedly imposed by the United States and the accusations surrounding who is responsible for violent crime and support of extremist groups. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being shut down because of criticisms of people profiting from mass murder. In response, Speaker 1 details a cascade of sanctions and restrictions: “I’m banned from travel to The US. I am financially censored. I cannot have a a credit card. I cannot be receive payment. I cannot make payments.” Speaker 1 adds that health insurance has been suspended “because I’m sanctioned by The United States,” indicating a broad range of denials tied to U.S. sanctions. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1, asking if anything is being left out and probing whether Speaker 1 has engaged in activities such as sending money to Hamas or participating in actions against the IDF, labeling Hamas as “A terror group.” The implication of the question is to suggest that Speaker 1’s sanctions might be connected to support for hostile or criminal activity. Speaker 1 responds by reframing the accusation, stating, “The only one who’s aiding and abetting someone else committing crime is The United States.” This assertion presents the United States as the active party in aiding or abetting crimes, according to Speaker 1. Speaker 0 concludes the exchange with a soft expression of concession, saying, “I’m sorry. I’m sorry to agree with you on that,” implying reluctant agreement with Speaker 1’s critical stance toward U.S. actions. Key points emphasize the scope of Speaker 1’s sanctions: travel ban to the United States, financial censorship, inability to use a credit card, inability to receive or make payments, and suspension of health insurance due to U.S. sanctions. The dialogue also highlights a dispute over responsibility for violence and crime, with Speaker 1 asserting that the United States is the one aiding and abetting crimes, while Speaker 0 questions whether Speaker 1 has engaged with or supported extremist activity such as funding Hamas or opposing the IDF. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging agreement with Speaker 1’s critical position on U.S. involvement, albeit reluctantly.

Elon Musk reportedly ordered his engineers to turn off Starlink coverage near the Crimean coast, preventing drones packed with explosives from reaching their target. Ukraine urgently requested Musk to restore the service, but he refused, stating that he did not want his satellites used for offensive purposes. The book attempts to portray Musk as a traitor, but in reality, he simply chose not to assist in escalating the conflict, especially considering the potential for a nuclear response. The underlying message seems to be that citizens of the west are expected to comply with the demands of the Ukrainian military without question, and any resistance is labeled as sabotage.

During a visit to Kyiv, the speaker planned to announce a $1 billion loan guarantee. However, the Ukrainian officials failed to take action against a state prosecutor as promised. The speaker refused to give them the money and told them to call the president if they disagreed. The speaker threatened to leave in six hours if the prosecutor wasn't fired, and eventually, the prosecutor was fired. Another speaker, who was the secretary of state at the time, mentioned that everyone in the administration, including Obama and the vice president, wanted to remove that prosecutor to support Ukraine's revolution.

This situation is an embarrassment for the U.S. on the world stage. This was a setup, orchestrated to compel Zelensky into a horrible deal that would have sent Ukraine's minerals to the U.S. without concrete security guarantees. Zelensky came to Washington to improve relations with Trump, but Vice President Vance confronted him, which I believe was deliberate and known by Trump. This was a play to Trump's base and, more importantly, to show fealty to Putin and humiliate Zelensky. Zelensky, showing dignity and representing his people, didn't follow the script and tried to correct the lies being told. It wasn't about gratitude; it was an effort to undermine the U.S.-Ukraine relationship, allowing Trump to hand U.S. interests and Ukraine to Putin. The big question is, why?

As secretary of state, I was deeply involved in the effort to remove the prosecutor. The entire administration, including Obama, the vice president, and myself, worked towards this goal. We believed that Ukraine needed to get rid of the prosecutor in order to succeed in the revolution. I made it clear to them that if the prosecutor was not fired, they would not receive the $1,000,000,000. Eventually, the prosecutor was fired, and Ukraine was able to move forward.

The speaker found it alarming that Asheville was reportedly disconnected from all roads, with nobody allowed in or out. Upon arriving in Asheville, the speaker set up personal Starlink devices at hotels where state troopers were staying. The troopers then flocked to the Starlink devices because they lacked connectivity, their radios were unusable, and they hadn't been provided Starlinks. The speaker claims that Biden, Harris, and Governor Roy Cooper illegally canceled the contracts for these Starlinks, leaving first responders unable to communicate. The speaker believes this lack of communication cost lives and that private citizens had to provide their own Starlink devices.

One participant observes that the matter is sophisticated and implies a coordinated effort beyond a single email, noting that it involves a multi-hundred-million-dollar transaction processed through complex steps and asking how the money can be traced. The other participant explains what is known: the NSA identified senior Ukrainian government officials who were having the conversation and reportedly have some of their emails. The intercepts do not name USAID workers directly; they only mention that they are “working for USAID in Kev.” Because of that, tracing who was in contact with those officials about a clean energy grant during a war with Russia should be possible by narrowing down who was connected to those USAID-related emails. They indicate progress has been made since the story was published the previous week, suggesting early movement in identifying the involved parties. They describe the NSA intercepts as a summary of intercepts noting that the operation was designed to be so complicated that it would be hard to figure out after the fact, with money laundered multiple times until it was eventually diverted and sent to the DNC and Joe Biden. At the time this was happening, a famous person was leading USAID: Samantha Power, who is described as very close to Obama, Clinton, and Biden. The statement emphasizes that, while this does not imply involvement, it suggests examining USAID from the top down to determine who knew what and when. In summary, the discussion frames the situation as a highly sophisticated, large-scale financial operation with a chain of communication involving senior Ukrainian officials and USAID personnel. The NSA’s intercepts point to a deliberate design to obscure the trail, with potential implications involving political figures connected to USAID’s leadership. The speakers highlight ongoing progress in identifying who was in touch with the Ukrainian officials and stress the importance of tracing the funding flow, including hints about laundering patterns and the ultimate destination of funds.

Colonel Douglas MacGregor discusses the escalating tensions over Iran and the possibility of drastic military action. He notes that President Trump says the deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz and negotiate a ceasefire is tomorrow, and that if they don’t, “the entire country will be taken out in one night,” raising questions about whether a nuclear weapon is at the ready. The discussion suggests that Trump’s line may be hyperbolic, with Speaker 1 positing that a nuclear weapon is unlikely and that conventional methods or power-grid disruption could be used to “take out the entire country” without permanently ending the war. He invokes George Kennan’s view on nuclear weapons and argues the goal is not to wage a nuclear exchange but to disrupt Iran’s energy infrastructure; he questions whether such measures would be permanent or decisive. The conversation shifts to censorship and satellite imagery. Speaker 2 reports that Planet Labs received a U.S. request to blackout images in and around Iran dating back to March 6, possibly earlier, with threats of sanctions if companies don’t comply. The panel discusses how to verify reality amid conflicting signals. The panel turns to a tactical assessment of potential actions around the Strait of Hormuz. Speaker 1 predicts Trump would pursue a coordinated air force and naval air strikes aimed at destroying petrochemical plants and energy infrastructure to deprive the government of power, though he doubts this would alter the strategic outcome given Iran’s continental capacity and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) capabilities. He explains Iran’s ability to use satellites and strike systems to counter, and notes Iran’s large force structure within the country. He warns that even if power is disrupted, Iran can respond and that the Gulf states would be affected due to a loss of energy and desalination capacity, potentially threatening regional stability and the Gulf’s populations. The discussion broadens to regional dynamics and Israel. Speaker 2 cites Trump’s remark about scrapping the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal to prioritize Israel, suggesting this shift contributed to the current conflict. Speaker 1 argues the global economy could enter a depression, highlighting how energy, plastics, fertilizer, and feedstock shortages would ripple through the Global South, Japan, Korea, and Europe as energy prices rise and supply chains falter. He asserts that oil is a global commodity and that a price rise worldwide is likely; he predicts a stock market crash and a long-term energy system rebuild. The hosts pivot to financial consequences and media appeals, with Speaker 0 promoting gold and silver investments through Lear Capital, citing Ed Dowd’s view on panic buying and shortages of fertilizer and energy, and predicting higher prices. The discussion notes a claim that about $42 billion has been spent on the conflict so far, with spending accelerating. On leadership and assessment of U.S. strategy, Speaker 1 raises concerns about President Trump’s current mental acuity and notes that some U.S. leaders are calling for a 60-day limit on hostilities without a formal declaration of war. He argues that Israel’s aims dominate the U.S. stance, complicating potential compromises with Iran and wider regional settlements. He asserts Israel seeks to expand its influence and dominance in the region, which undermines potential settlements and constrains U.S. options. In Israel, Speaker 1 explains that Hezbollah is not out of action and has launched rockets into Northern Israel; Israeli public unrest and evacuation patterns hint at severe internal strain. He contends that Israel relies heavily on U.S. support, which could be leveraged for broader regional aims, but may be unsustainable given regional opposition to Israel’s expansion. He suggests Arab populations and governing elites in the Gulf and Egypt grow discontent with Western-backed leadership. Finally, the panel probes the potential use of ground forces and the plausibility of a doomsday scenario, with Speaker 1 arguing that a large, sustained ground operation in the Gulf is unlikely to change the outcome without comprehensive disruption of Iranian strike systems and satellite networks. He emphasizes that a nuclear option would be catastrophic, and expresses concern about Israeli actions and regional reactions, including possible involvement by Russia, China, and other powers. Colonel MacGregor closes by pointing readers to his Substack for ongoing strategic analysis and reiterates the anticipated economic and geopolitical upheaval from the conflict.

The speaker claims that Telegram receives excessive attention from US security agencies. During a US visit, an engineer working for Telegram was allegedly approached by cybersecurity agents attempting a secret hire. The agents were interested in Telegram's open-source libraries and tried persuading the engineer to integrate specific open-source tools that the speaker believes would function as backdoors, potentially enabling government surveillance of Telegram users. The speaker also recounts personal experiences of being met by FBI agents at US airports and visited at their residence. They believe the FBI's interest was in gathering details about Telegram and establishing a relationship to better control the platform. While acknowledging the agents were doing their job, the speaker suggests this level of scrutiny made the US a less-than-ideal environment for running a privacy-focused social media platform.

I went to Kyiv to announce a $1 billion loan guarantee, but only if they took action against the state prosecutor. When they didn't, I refused to give them the money. I told them they had 6 hours to fire the prosecutor or they wouldn't get the money. They fired him, and made some significant institutional and personnel changes.