TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Europe should have been negotiating with Russia, but now that Trump is, some are in an uproar. If the US stops sending arms and funding, the war will end. This all stems from American arrogance, going back decades to the US declaring itself the sole superpower and expanding NATO eastward, ignoring Russian concerns. The US participated in a violent coup in Ukraine in 2014, further escalating tensions. Europe needs a grown-up foreign policy, not one based on hate speech or Russophobia, but real diplomacy. NATO should have been disbanded in 1991. The US sees this as a game, but for Russia, it's about core national security.

This is a disgusting situation where Americans are funding the slaughter in Ukraine. Some officials want to send family members to fight there, even though Ukraine isn't in NATO. Putin hasn't threatened Europe.

We need courageous leaders who prioritize principles and patriotism in senior ranks. A president must shake things up to remove dangerous individuals. Americans must realize the importance of establishing a just world through dialogue with other nations. Unfortunately, significant turmoil may be necessary to drive this change. The media's bias has hindered public perception. Major countries like China, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and India support Russia in the ongoing conflict.

Our countries were invaded multiple times, yet those who speak of fighting invasions seem to have forgotten. They invaded Iraq, Syria, and Libya for oil. The same reasons used to defend Zelensky should also be used to defend Palestine. To achieve sustainable development goals, all wars should cease, but they supported one because it suited their power games. They don't have $100 billion to help countries defend against floods and hurricanes, but they have enough to fuel conflict between Russians and Ukrainians in a single day.

Speaker 0 describes Zelensky as an American hero and contrasts his public image with the underlying narrative. He explains Zelensky was totally apolitical, an outsider with no government experience, a comedian, and the star of a planned TV show called Servant of the People. In the show, the main character creates a YouTube video that calls out oligarchs and corruption, becomes popular, and is drafted as a protest candidate who eventually becomes president. In real life, the TV show is supported by oligarch Kolomoisky, who owned the channel and did a large, nonstop promotional push to make it the number one show, including primetime slots, ads, and crossovers with the news. In 2018, a year before the show ended, Zelensky formed a political party named Servant of the People, the same title as the show, and secretly produced another season of the show. In April 2019, he announced his candidacy on Instagram, with no campaign, no rallies, no real platform, and he skipped presidential debates; his few early press conferences were poor. Kolomoisky’s channel provided Zelensky with endless airtime and favorable polls while attacking his enemies. Speaker 0 continues that US intelligence agencies, CIA and NSA, helped by funding democracy campaigns in Ukraine—reportedly around $5 billion—funneled through NGOs, with USAID embedding advisers in Zelensky’s organization to assist the campaign. On election day, Zelensky wins with 73% of the vote. Afterward, the war with Russia occurs, he declares martial law, and elections are ended. An election in 2024 is anticipated as the result of democracy money. He asserts Zelensky is an actor in a carefully designed television show—“a construct,” akin to Epstein—an created entity that works, and asks what Americans think about his popularity. Speaker 1 responds that Americans are disappointed by the ongoing war and deaths, noting that the war’s human cost is a major failure of promises from the Trump administration, who claimed he would resolve it in 24 hours. He adds that conscripting 60-year-old men and Americans and others going to fight are part of the situation. He states that the Ukraine narrative, and wars in general, are not organic: wars like this are driven by demands for primacy, control, and wealth, rather than being spontaneous. He reflects that Putin didn’t suddenly decide to invade; similarly, the broader pattern of power is not organic. He notes the Russian soldiers were told they would be welcomed and that they had dress uniforms, and compares to expectations in Iraq, where it was promised that Iraqis would welcome forces. He asks what the Ukraine situation is really about, and comments that human war reduces to a few centers of power like NATO, China, the Soviet bloc, and oil-producing countries, ultimately converging to two leaders in a room who must kill each other, as part of the decay of empire, with the U.S. maintaining about 760 overseas military bases.

South Africa is facing a crisis with 40 race-based laws targeting white people. Recently, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed "expropriation without compensation" into law, which feels like the final straw. We've been dealing with anti-white laws for a long time. I'm grateful that America and Donald Trump are paying attention because we're on the brink of a socialist collapse. I don't believe we can fix this internally and the economy may not survive until the next election in 2029. We need external intervention and hopefully America's involvement will provide the necessary change. South Africa is far more infected with the woke mind virus than America, and there's no effort to reverse it here.

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.

Putin's worldview contrasts sharply with the reality of his war's brutality. The U.S. has a history of military interventions, starting with the bombing of Belgrade under Clinton, which aimed to alter European borders without UN authority. The U.S. also engaged in illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. In 2014, the U.S. supported the overthrow of Yanukovych in Ukraine, disregarding a prior agreement with the EU for early elections. The Minsk II agreement, intended to bring peace, was ignored by the U.S. government, which viewed it as a mere delay tactic. Trust in the U.S. is lacking, and a clear, public agreement between the conflicting sides is necessary to prevent further interventions and ensure stability. Treaties can hold if respected by all parties involved.

The ongoing wars are fueled by peace agreements that are not meant to be upheld. The conflict in Ukraine started with a coup backed by the US, leading to violations of peace agreements. NATO's expansion and manipulation of the US dollar are used as tools for control. The overthrow of Gaddafi was to prevent a currency competition with the US dollar. Ultimately, these actions benefit corporations like BlackRock and Vanguard.

I think most Americans stopped paying attention to South Africa after the end of apartheid in 1994, but the situation there has deteriorated. The democratic system set up in the 90s is being used to promote socialist ends. Black Economic Empowerment, for example, has nothing to do with economic empowerment. The ANC, South Africa's ruling party, has strong communist ties and is implementing policies that are actively discriminating against taxpayers. The government isn't protecting lives or property and is pushing to expropriate private property without compensation. This is coupled with a radical ideology being taught at universities that dehumanizes white people and could be a predicate for genocide. It's a collapsing society and the West cheers it on, but it's time to wake up to what's happening there.

South Africa is on the brink of a socialist collapse due to numerous anti-white laws, including the recent "expropriation without compensation" act. We've been boiling like a frog, and I'm grateful that America and Donald Trump are taking notice. Internally, I don't see a way out. We need an external force to change things, and America's intervention might be the solution. The woke mind virus has infected South Africa far worse than in America, and there's no movement here to reverse it; it's quite the opposite.

Putin's intention in the war wasn't to take over Ukraine, but to keep NATO, meaning the United States, off Russia's border. After the Soviet Union's end in 1991, an agreement stated NATO wouldn't move eastward, but the US decided to expand NATO eastward, formally deciding in 1994 to include Ukraine and Georgia. NATO enlargement began in 1999, upsetting Russia. By 2008, the US pushed for NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia, which Russia protested, drawing a parallel to a hypothetical military base on the US border. In 2014, the US actively worked to overthrow Yanukovych. Putin's intention was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality, which initially occurred, but Ukraine withdrew from the agreement, reportedly due to US influence. The US aimed to isolate Russia by controlling the Black Sea, viewing it as a proxy war, while the consequences included significant Ukrainian casualties.

El Fasher, North Darfur, a city of 400,000 civilians, has been under RSF blockade for eighteen months with no food, no medicine, and no way out. Drones circle overhead; aid convoys are bombed; children survive on animal feed. Hospitals have collapsed and disease spreads through the camps. The world calls it famine, but this is described as deliberate starvation. The UAE is alleged to be central to the war’s continuation, with claims that the architect behind the siege survives only through a lifeline built in Abu Dhabi. UN investigators documented a heavy rotation of cargo flights from UAE airfields to Chad and Darfur, and aircraft disappearing from radar manifests with Red Crescent logos masking crates of weapons and drones. When the United Nations tried to condemn the El Fasher siege, the UAE blocked the resolution shielding the forced starving civilians. Each plane landing in Darfur is said to keep the siege alive. Independent inquiries confirm RSF forces systematically target non-Arab tribes, including Massalit, Zaghawa, and Berti. In 2023, up to 15,000 people were massacred in El Janaina; in 2025, another 1,500 were slaughtered at Sudan’s largest displacement camp. Survivors recount commanders ordering fighters to wipe out all the Zaghawa, with entire villages burned and civilians executed at checkpoints, and women and children buried in mass graves. This is described as genocide, financed by foreign gold and protected by silence. The UAE could end Sudan’s war but it won’t. The report mentions chemical weapons and foreign mercenaries, with doctors in Darfur describing victims with severe burns, respiratory failure, and corneal injuries after RSF bombardments, symptoms suggested to be exposure to chemical agents. These reports are under investigation, but if proven, they would mark a new phase of chemical warfare against civilians under Emirati-supplied skies. Investigative files also allege Colombian mercenaries recruited through private networks linked to Emirati contractors, trained veterans deployed to reinforce RSF positions during the siege, bringing imported expertise and death. The UAE could end Sudan’s war but it won’t. The motive is described as gold and power. Between 2012 and 2022, an estimated 2,569 tons of undeclared gold valued at about $115 billion were illicitly exported from Africa, the vast majority flowing to Dubai. Swiss aid notes the UAE has emerged as a key center for smuggled African gold, importing hundreds of tons annually, including roughly 435 tons in 2022. RSF front companies, run by Hamedi’s brothers in Dubai, allegedly sell this gold, launder profits, and purchase weapons devastating Sudan. Every ounce refined in Dubai is said to carry the weight of Sudanese blood. The false narrative claims Abu Dhabi backs the RSF to fight Islamism, yet the RSF was created by Islamists. The real goal is control of Sudan’s gold, farmland, and Red Sea ports. The pattern—proxies, fuel chaos, then profit from reconstruction and resource access—extends from Yemen to Libya to Darfur. The final claim is that cut Emirati funding, stop the flights, and freeze the cover would cause the RSF to collapse within weeks, lifting the siege, allowing aid to flow, and ending famine, but it concludes that Abu Dhabi will not act because chaos is profitable and gold outweighs justice. Every child starving in El Fasher, every body in a shallow grave, every smuggled bar of gold is linked to the same source: the UAE could end Sudan’s war but it won’t.

The war in Ukraine was a terrible debacle caused by The United States expanding NATO despite Russia's objections. Ukraine and Russia were about to sign a peace agreement based on neutrality, but "The United States said, no." We want "military bases. We want NATO there. Don't sign the agreement." The speaker argues the conflict could end if Trump publicly declared that NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine: "NATO will not move one inch eastward, not one inch." They note "They promised." The piece cites Clinton in 1994 beginning NATO enlargement and calls this "the most basic point" that we do not need conflict. It says we end Ukraine's war with Ukrainian neutrality and halting NATO enlargement; Russia won't accept it, "just like The United States didn't accept bases in Cuba of the Russian military." It closes with AI as a better mediator: "it'll give you both sides of the argument."

Russia has 6,000 nuclear warheads, 1,600 that are deployed. Russia is under attack by The US and UK. I say that because while Ukraine nominally presses the button or, makes the attack, it's US weaponry, US satellites, US intelligence, US tracking, US logistics. And so we have an active hot war going on right now. It's insane. So far, no American president, has had, either the bravery or the decency to tell the truth, which is that from the time of the end of the Soviet Union in December 1991 until now, The US has been on a campaign to weaken Russia, to divide Russia, to surround Russia, to put US military all around Russia, to break apart Russia if possible, to sanction Russia to its knees, whatever it is. That's been The US campaign. So if this war is gonna stop, The US has to stop its campaign against Russia. That's the story.

Glenn: Welcome back. We are joined today by Professor John Mersheimer to understand what is happening in the world with this new great power rivalry and how the outcome of the Ukraine war will impact this new Cold War. Have we entered a new Cold War? Who are the players, competing interests, and the rules? Mersheimer: I think we have entered a new Cold War. We're in a multipolar system, and the United States, China, and Russia are the three great powers. The United States is certainly in a cold war with China. China is powerful and threatens to dominate East Asia, and the United States will almost certainly go to great lengths to prevent that from happening, which axiomatically creates an intense security competition in China. An intense security competition is a cold war, and the name of the game is to make sure that security competition does not turn into a hot war. We are in a cold war with the Chinese, or the Chinese are in a cold war with us. The hot war is avoided. Regarding Russia, since we moved into multipolarity, the Russians and the Chinese have been close allies against the United States. This is largely a result of the Ukraine war, which has pushed the Russians into the arms of the Chinese and caused closer Sino-Russian cooperation. The United States, through the Biden administration, was involved in a cold war with both Russia and China. Trump tried to change that, seeking good relations with Russia to form a Russia-plus-US alliance against China, but he has been unable to make that happen. The result is that the United States is basically still in a cold war with both Russia and China. The war in Ukraine has made me worry greatly that the Cold War in Europe could turn into a hot war, even as the U.S.-China relationship remains cooler so far. Glenn: European leaders hoped the United States and Europe would unite in this new Cold War, with liberal hegemony fading and a return to unity against Russia. But Ukraine has instead divided Europe. How do you explain this? Is it the US not seeing Russia as the same threat as Europeans, or a concern about pushing Russia toward China, or Europe’s costs of the partnership? Is this uniquely a Trump-era approach? Mersheimer: From an American point of view, good relations with Russia make sense. China is the peer competitor, and the United States wants to pivot to East Asia to prevent China’s dominance. Russia is the weakest of the three great powers and not a major threat to Europe. The Americans believe Europe can deal with Russia, freeing them to focus on China. Europe, by contrast, is threatened by Russia’s proximity and thus prioritizes Russia. NATO expansion into Ukraine is seen by many Europeans as a disaster, poisoning Russia–Europe relations, making Europe deeply committed to using Ukraine to weaken Russia. The transatlantic alliance becomes strained, especially with Trump raising the possibility of leaving NATO. Europeans fear losing the American pacifier that keeps centrifugal forces in check, which would complicate European coordination with Russia. Glenn: If the United States signals a departure, won’t Europe face greater challenges in managing Russia? And is Russia truly an empire-building threat, or is this a post-2014 narrative that intensified after February 2022? Mersheimer: Bringing Ukraine into NATO was destined to cause trouble. The crisis began in 2014, and the 2022 war is ongoing. The Ukrainians and Europeans want a security guarantee for Ukraine, essentially NATO membership, while Russia demands territory and rejects a security guarantee that would enshrine NATO’s presence near its borders. The Europeans see NATO expansion as threatening, while the Americans view Russia as the weaker power and the need to pivot to China. The controversy over responsibility for this disaster arises from competing interpretations of NATO expansion and Russian aggression. Glenn: Do you see Russia changing course soon? There has been escalation—Odessa blockades, port attacks, and targeting infrastructure. Could this signal a new stage of the war? Mersheimer: The Russians believe Ukraine is on the ropes and expect to win on the battlefield in 2026, possibly expanding fronts in Kharkiv and Sumy. They may consider increasing conventional force and possibly using nuclear weapons if the war drags on. They view the conflict as existential and fear losing, which could push them toward drastic measures to end the war. The Russians could escalate if they think they cannot win conventionally. Glenn: What are the non-nuclear options to win quickly? Could the Russians deliver a decisive conventional victory? Mersheimer: It’s a war of attrition. If Ukraine’s army is weakened, Russia could surround large Ukrainian formations, disrupt logistics, and open larger fronts. They may build up forces in the rear, potentially for a breakthrough or to deter Western escalation. The battlefield outcome may determine the next steps, including whether nuclear options are considered. Glenn: How will Ukraine end? Is it a military defeat, economic collapse, or political fragmentation? Mersheimer: Ukraine is likely to be defeated on the battlefield. Its economy is in desperate shape, and losing Odessa or more territory would worsen it. Politically, Ukraine will face internal divisions once the war ends. Europe will face a broken Russia–Ukraine relationship, with some European states viewing the conflict differently. Ukraine’s demographic decline compounds its bleak outlook, and the country may become a problematic rump state. The war should have been settled earlier; the negotiators in Istanbul in 2022 could have sought a different path. Zelensky’s choice to align with Western powers and walk away from Istanbul negotiations deepened Ukraine’s predicament. Glenn: Any final reflections? Mersheimer: The war’s outcome will reshape Western unity and European security. Historians may view this as a major mistake in weakening the West. The blame for the disaster will likely be attributed in the West to Russia’s imperialism, but the expansion of NATO is also central. Europe’s economic and political landscape will be altered, and Ukraine’s future will be deeply challenging.

This is a conflict between powerful nations, not to be taken sides with. It's like modern slavery, where we should aim to overthrow the system, not support any master. We must see these fights as opportunities to eventually make a revolution and end their control.

South Sudanese economist accused of trying to export Stinger missile systems. US does not support violent regime changes in Africa. Violations of export regulations will be punished. Thank you for today.

The US often fabricates human rights violations to justify intervention, and South Africa is now a target. Right-wing groups are seeking foreign funding to establish independent states, which is part of a plan for economic isolation and military intervention. Agawa will be terminated, escalating tensions. We must dismiss groups exploiting US imperialism to fund racist fantasies; land will be expropriated without compensation. The US is not demonstrating strength but advanced capitalism, or imperialism. Its hostility towards South Africa stems from its imperialist agenda, not disinformation from a minor racist group. The US, with its sophisticated intelligence agencies, cannot claim to be misinformed. It is embracing imperialism through threats and aid termination. Our government is foolishly trying to explain policies to a maniacal president, as if the US is misinformed, but they know exactly what they're doing.