TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that international security is broader than military-political stability and includes global economic stability, poverty reduction, economic security, and civilizational dialogue. He emphasizes the principle that security of each is security of all, recalling Franklin Roosevelt’s idea that “wherever peace is violated, peace everywhere is threatened.” He asserts that two decades ago the world was split ideologically and economically, with security provided by the large strategic potential of two superpowers, and that global confrontation has moved to the periphery of international relations, leaving acute economic and social issues unresolved. He criticizes the unipolar world as not achievable or acceptable, defining it as one center of power and one center of decision-making, a model he says is not democracy and ultimately destructive for both the ruled and the ruler. He notes that unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved problems and have caused new tragedies and tens of thousands of civilian deaths. He points to the increasing and unchecked use of force in international affairs, the neglect of core principles of international law, and the tendency to resolve issues on the basis of political expediency. The speaker highlights new threats such as weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, arguing for a balanced approach that considers the interests of all international actors. He notes the rapid changes in the international landscape, including the rise of China and India, whose combined GDP (at PPP) surpasses the US, and BRICS collectively surpassing the EU, predicting that economic power will increasingly translate into political influence and strengthen multipolarity. He calls for multilateral diplomacy, openness, transparency, and predictability, with force used only as an exceptional measure and in accordance with the UN Charter, not as a substitute for collective security institutions such as the UN, NATO, or the EU. The speaker defends adherence to international treaties on nonproliferation and disarmament, recalling Russia’s agreement with the US to cut strategic nuclear weapons to 1700–2200 deployable warheads by December 31, 2012, and emphasizes Russia’s commitment to the NPT and multilateral controls on missile technologies. He critiques the proliferation of missile systems in various countries and the existence of new high-tech weapons, including space-based systems, warning that militarization of space could have consequences comparable to the nuclear era. He announces a Russian proposal for a Space Weapons Prevention Treaty and discusses concerns about missile defense deployments in Europe, arguing they provoke a new arms race and distrust. Regarding conventional forces in Europe, he criticizes the Adapted CFE Treaty for insufficient ratification and notes NATO’s expansion near Russian borders, arguing that such expansion reduces mutual trust. He recalls a 1990 NATO secretary-general statement about not placing troops beyond Germany’s borders and stresses that Russia seeks an independent foreign policy with responsible partners to build a fair and democratic world order for all. He also discusses energy cooperation, arguing that energy prices should be market-driven and that foreign capital participates significantly in Russian oil production, with investments in Russia exceeding Russian investments abroad by about 15:1. He mentions Russia’s ongoing WTO accession and criticizes double standards in poverty alleviation, noting how aid and subsidies can perpetuate economic underdevelopment and fuel radicalism and conflict. Finally, he defends the OSCE as a body intended to address security in a holistic way but contends it has been used to serve external interests and to finance NGOs that may interfere in internal affairs. He calls for the OSCE to respect sovereignty and for cooperation based on mutual trust. He closes by reaffirming Russia’s longstanding tradition of independent external policy and expresses a desire to work with responsible, independent partners to build a just, democratic world order that ensures security and prosperity for all.

Ray McGovern recounts a long, inside view of U.S.–Soviet/Russian arms control and how it shaped or hindered security over decades, tying personal experience to broader strategic lessons. - Continuity and historical perspective. McGovern notes that, after decades in the CIA, he has witnessed both continuity and change in U.S. strategy across eras and administrations. He emphasizes that serious arms control and verification work has often depended on skilled, principled diplomacy even amid bureaucratic friction and political constraints. - Early arms-control work and verification. As chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch in the CIA during the SALT era, he helped support Kissinger and Nixon while recognizing that the Russians faced pressure from both arms racing and concerns about China’s progress. He recalls briefing the Moscow delegation and the importance of verification: “Trust but verify.” He describes witnessing the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty negotiations and the process of uncovering Russian cheating (a radar at Krasnoyarsk later identified as ABM-related). The experience reinforced the value of independent verification mechanisms. - Personal anecdotes about diplomacy and decision-making. McGovern shares instances illustrating how diplomacy operated in practice: Kissinger touring Moscow covertly to broker deals; ambassador Beam's reaction in Helsinki; the sense that a president’s trusted aides could push forward arms-control progress even amid Senate resistance. He stresses the role of credible, informed analysis about the Soviet Union and Gorbachev, and the way that genuine engagement with Moscow helped reduce tensions at key moments (e.g., the late-1970s/early-1980s path toward detente and arms control). - Key treaties and turning points. He highlights several milestones: - ABM Treaty (1972): limiting ABM sites to two, then one, to preserve deterrence stability; verification challenges and the Russians’ willingness to negotiate under pressure. - Reykjavik and the late-1980s era: Reagan’s willingness to pursue arms-control breakthroughs; the shift that helped lead to meaningful reductions. - INF Treaty (1991/1992 onward) and its later withdrawal under Trump: the collapse of a pillar of strategic stability and its consequences for future arms control. - New START (2011): described as “really good” in limiting offensive missiles; its expiry topic is central to the current security calculation. Putin’s public suggestion to extend the treaty for another year, conditional on U.S. reciprocity, is noted; Trump’s stance is portrayed as uncertain or inconsistent. - The broader security architecture and indivisible security. McGovern stresses that “there is no security without mutual security” and points to the OSCE concept of indivisible security—no country should increase its security at the expense of others. He argues that NATO expansion and security dynamics in Europe have undermined mutual security and contributed to the current fragility in the security architecture. - Ukraine, NATO, and the stakes of perception. He contends that Moscow viewed NATO expansion and Ukraine’s trajectory as threats to its core security interests, contributing to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. He argues that Americans are often not educated about mutual security principles, which fuels misperceptions and escalatory dynamics. - Putin as a cautious actor and the risk of leadership reliability. McGovern describes Putin as a cautious statesman who aims to protect Russia’s core interests and avoid existential risk. He suggests Putin is calculating the reliability of U.S. leadership, especially under Trump, whose unpredictability complicates trust and predictability in negotiations. He notes Trump’s perceived narcissism and the possibility that Trump’s motivations in pursuing a peace process could be mixed with personal prestige or political gain. - Current and near-term outlook. The discussion touches on the likelihood of renewed arms-control leverage if U.S. and Russian leaders can agree on Ukraine-related constraints and verify compliance. It also notes that the broader trend—toward weaker, inconsistent adherence to treaties and a perceived decline in diplomacy—risks fueling a renewed arms race and greater instability. - Closing sentiment. McGovern underscores that genuine arms-control diplomacy, mutual restraint, and credible verification are essential for reducing the security dilemma that drives dangerous competition. He frames Putin as a potential hinge for stabilizing relations if U.S. leadership can articulate and sustain a credible, reciprocal security posture. Overall, the dialogue weaves historical memory with current geopolitics, stressing that lasting security rests on mutual restraint, verifiable agreements, and a shared understanding of indivisible security—even as political winds shift and alliances realign.

"Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin's will." "NATO expansion eastward is a violation of the promise you all were made in 1990." "In 02/2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine." "Maidan and a coup in Ukraine." "denazification. After gaining independence, Ukraine began to search, as some Western analysts say, its identity." "The president of Ukraine stood up with the entire parliament of Canada and applauded this man." "the dollar is the cornerstone of The United States power." "BRICS countries accounted for only 16% in 1992, but now their share is greater than that of the G7." "the world should be a single whole, security should be shared, rather than a meant for the golden billion." "We are ready for negotiations indeed."

The speaker addresses international security, stating it involves more than military and political stability, including global economic stability and dialogue between civilizations. The speaker critiques the concept of a unipolar world led by one master, arguing it's flawed and undemocratic. The speaker claims the hyper-use of military force is plunging the world into conflict, with increasing disdain for international law. The speaker notes the economic potential of countries like India, China and the BRIC countries will strengthen multipolarity. The speaker advocates for openness, transparency, and predictability in politics, with the UN as the sole legitimate authority for using military force. The speaker highlights the stagnation in disarmament and supports renewing dialogue, while expressing concern over plans to expand anti-missile defense systems to Europe and NATO expansion. The speaker emphasizes the need to strengthen the nonproliferation regime and proposes international centers for uranium enrichment. The speaker calls for uniform market principles and transparent conditions in the energy sector. The speaker criticizes developed countries for maintaining agricultural subsidies that hinder developing countries. The speaker also criticizes the OSCE, claiming it is being used to promote the interests of select countries. The speaker concludes by affirming Russia's commitment to an independent foreign policy and collaboration with responsible partners to build a fair and democratic world order.

The speaker suggests the US has a history of interventionism, citing the bombing of Belgrade to create Kosovo and establish a NATO base. They claim the US illegally engaged in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, with the Obama administration tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad. They also allege the US, along with right-wing Ukrainian military forces, overthrew Yanukovych in Kyiv in 2014, despite an EU agreement for early elections. The speaker states that in 2015, Russia wanted peace through negotiations, leading to the Minsk II agreement, which was unanimously voted on by the UN Security Council and signed by Ukraine. However, the speaker claims the US government laughed at it, and Angela Merkel admitted it was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine to build strength. The speaker distrusts the US government and wants both sides to agree to terms publicly, with the US agreeing to stop overthrowing governments, Russia agreeing to not advance further, and NATO agreeing to not enlarge.

The speaker criticizes the unipolar model, stating it's impossible in today's world due to lack of moral foundations. They condemn the US for overstepping its boundaries in various aspects, making no one feel safe. NATO's expansion is seen as a provocation, with American bases near Russia's borders. The speaker asserts Russia's long history of independent foreign policy won't change.

Russia will remain a dangerous opponent for a long time, and we must include Ukraine in NATO. The only way to have trusting relations with Moscow is through a decisive defeat and a reset in Russia, where the Russian population and politics abandon their deeply rooted imperial, aggressive, and colonial ideas.

Спасибо за возможность выступить на этой конференции. Проблемы международной безопасности выходят за рамки военно-политической стабильности и включают экономическую безопасность и преодоление бедности. Однополярный мир невозможен, так как он создает центры власти, которые разрушают систему. Мы наблюдаем рост конфликтов и применение силы, что угрожает международному праву. Необходимо искать баланс интересов всех стран и укреплять многостороннюю дипломатию. Россия поддерживает сокращение ядерных вооружений и выступает за предотвращение размещения оружия в космосе. Мы открыты к сотрудничеству в области ядерной энергетики, но также осознаем риски, связанные с распространением оружия. Важно создать справедливую экономическую систему, чтобы предотвратить радикализм и конфликты. Россия будет продолжать проводить независимую внешнюю политику и стремиться к сотрудничеству с ответственными партнерами. Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this conference. International security issues extend beyond military-political stability to include economic security and poverty alleviation. A unipolar world is impossible as it creates power centers that undermine the system. We are witnessing an increase in conflicts and the use of force, threatening international law. It is essential to seek a balance of interests among all countries and strengthen multilateral diplomacy. Russia supports nuclear disarmament and advocates for preventing the placement of weapons in space. We are open to cooperation in nuclear energy but recognize the risks of proliferation. It is vital to create a fair economic system to prevent radicalism and conflicts. Russia will continue to pursue an independent foreign policy and seek cooperation with responsible partners.

Speaker portrays a world at a crossroads, with irreversible changes and a new multipolar order led by the global majority against neocolonial control. He brands the West as 'an empire of lies' and accuses it of failing to fulfill commitments, citing NATO expansion toward Russia’s borders and 'assurances' broken. He highlights joint US–NATO nuclear scenarios, space and information dominance, and alliance networks AUKUS and the Quad, warning that 'the Monroe doctrine into a global one' is underway. The speech urges reform of global governance, noting that 'the democratic principle of the sovereign equality of states' must guide a fair UN and expanded Security Council representation, end unilateral coercive measures, and decolonization. It cites climate finance promises of 2009 ($100,000,000,000 annually) versus '$170,000,000,000' spent on Kyiv; calls for dialogue on Palestine–Israel, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Kosovo.

The speaker argues that most U.S. interventions are driven by a power calculus rather than defense. “We view this as a power situation for The US” and it’s about “a perception of US power and US interest, and objectives of US global hegemony.” He contends that the Ukraine conflict is not simply about Putin invading Ukraine but “something a lot different that has to do with American power projection into the former Soviet Union.” If the United States acts as the police, he says, one cannot imagine how cynical “bullshit” is used to justify actions: “defending the people of Benghazi” is cited to bomb Libya and kill Muammar Gaddafi, with motives linked to Sarkozy’s dislike of Gaddafi and Hillary’s apparent appetite for bombing, while Obama was “convinced” by his secretary of state to back the NATO expedition. He argues the Libya operation had nothing to do with Libyans and “unleashed fifteen years of chaos,” cheating the UN Security Council because, like other actions, it was built on false pretenses. The same pattern, he claims, was used in attempts to overthrow Syria and in conspiring to overthrow Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine in February 2014. The speaker maintains the problem is that “we’re not nice guys. We’re not trying to save the world. We’re not trying to make democracies.” He cites a committee of neocon luminaries, jokingly calling it “the Committee for the People of Chechnya,” to illustrate a strategy of weakening Russia by supporting a jihadist movement inside Russia—presented as a power game rather than principled intervention. He emphasizes that this is a game of power, not defense of real things. If one truly wanted to defend real objectives, he says, they should go to the UN Security Council and persuade others, because other countries are not crazy and do not want mayhem, whereas “we play games.” He concludes by reflecting on Iraq, stating it was “a game before we went in” and noting that “Powell could not move his lips without lying that day.” The implication is that, if the United States pursued its true interests, it would seek collective action through the UN Security Council, making it a collective security issue rather than unilateral action.

Glenn opens by noting a year has passed since Jeffrey Sachs urged Europe to adopt a realistic foreign policy that understands Russia, Europe, and the United States, and to avoid being invaded by the U.S.—even suggesting Trump could land troops in Greenland. Glenn asks how to read the current situation, including Davos and Europe’s anger at U.S. hostility, and the revived emphasis on international law. Jeffrey Sachs responds with a version of the “ride on the back of a tiger” metaphor from Kennedy, arguing Europeans forgot that the United States is an imperial power that has acted brazenly and brutally for about twenty years. He lists U.S. actions: invasions, regime changes, and reckless interference in Ukraine, and U.S. complicity in Israel’s wars across Africa and the Middle East, along with involvement in overthrowing Ukraine’s Yanukovych and other interventions. He claims Europeans were silent or complicit as the United States bombed Iran, kidnapped its president, and pursued Greenland, calling the Greenland push a grotesque power grab by Trump. He asserts New York Times recognition of U.S. imperial tendencies and says Europe’s naivete and hypocrisy are evident. He states: “The United States is thuggish, imperialistic, reckless, and that The U. S. Has left a large swath of the world in misery. Europe has been mostly compliant or complicit.” He urges Europeans to understand what the United States is about, to stop Russophobia, and to keep lines of communication with Russia open; he argues Europe’s Russophobia made it boxed in with little diplomacy with Russia or the U.S. Glenn adds that Europe’s stance mirrors a Cold War-like unity against Russia, but that the current reality differs: the U.S. does not view Russia as its main adversary, and Russophobia deepens Europe’s dependence on the U.S. Glenn notes mixed reactions at Davos, including Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney signaling a shift away from a rules-based order that privileges the West, and Macron’s private message to Trump seeking a cooperative stance on Syria, Iran, and Greenland. He remarks that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg praised NATO while Trump hinted that the real enemy is within NATO, highlighting the chaos. He asks if this signals a decline of the U.S. empire or NATO. Sachs discusses Carney's stance as significant: Carney’s trip to China and a dialogue with Beijing indicating diversification with China, including a Canadian-Chinese investment plan. He credits Carney with being a rare straightforward statesman and notes instability ahead. Trump’s Davos retreat from threats (notably Greenland) may have been influenced by stock-market declines, according to Sachs’ theory. He mentions a possible European concession about U.S. sovereignty over parts of Greenland, though he doubts any negotiation has been meaningful. He cites Scott Bessent’s Fox Business interview as revealing: sanctions on Iran are a form of economic statecraft designed to crush the Iranian economy, with Iran’s currency collapse and bank failures cited as evidence; Sachs condemns this as a violation of international law and UN Charter, and calls Bessent’s pride in wielding currency-destabilization as alarming. He points to sanctions against Cuba and a broader pattern of “thuggish gangster behavior” by the U.S., noting Europeans’ silence on Iran and other regimes until it backfires on them. Sachs argues Europe’s Russophobia is self-destructive, and he emphasizes that diplomacy remains possible if Germany, France, and Italy adopt a rational approach. He criticizes Germany for duplicity in NATO enlargement and Minsk II, blaming Merkel for dropped commitments, and notes that Italy shows less Russophobia and could shift toward diplomacy. He believes Central Europe and some leaders (e.g., Orban, Czech and Slovak figures) favor diplomacy, but German leadership has been weak. He stresses that Europe must avoid dismemberment and choose diplomacy with Russia, warning that continued war policy will leave Europe isolated. He closes with optimism that there remains a path forward if key European powers act differently. Glenn thanks Sachs for the discussion and ends.

Speaker 1: We have not gone to war with Russia. Russia is isolated, more than five years ago, a regional power threatening neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness. Ukraine had influence for decades since the Soviet breakup. We have considerable influence on our neighbors and generally don't need to invade to have cooperation. Russia's military action violates international law and signals less influence. They don't pose the number one national security threat to United States; I am concerned about a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan. Speaker 2: It is up to the Ukrainian people to decide how they organize themselves. The Ukrainian government is prepared to negotiate with Russia, and the international community supports a diplomatic process to de-escalate tensions, move Russian troops back from Ukraine's borders, and organize elections; the Ukrainian people will choose leadership. They will want a relationship with Europe and with Russia; this is not a zero-sum game.

The speaker argues the US has a history of interventionism, citing the bombing of Belgrade to create Kosovo and establish a NATO base, as well as interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. They claim the US orchestrated the overthrow of Yanukovych in Ukraine in 2014, despite an EU-brokered agreement for early elections. The speaker states that the Minsk II agreement, intended to bring peace through negotiations between Ukraine and ethnic Russians, was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council but was disregarded by the US government and Ukraine, with Angela Merkel admitting it was a ploy to buy time for Ukraine to strengthen its military. The speaker expresses distrust of the US government and advocates for a transparent agreement between all parties, including guarantees against further expansion by NATO and military action by Russia.

We've seen five waves of NATO expansion, with military bases and attack systems now deployed in Romania and Poland. Ukraine is also being considered for NATO membership. We didn't threaten anyone; they came to our borders. Instead of treating Russia as a potential ally and building trust, they kept breaking us up and expanding NATO to the East. We expressed our concerns, but they didn't care. We prioritize our own security.

Mike opens by noting cautious optimism about a peace agreement, while acknowledging widespread skepticism and asking why negotiations have stalled. He cites Rubio’s Vanity Fair quote: offers exist to stop the war on current lines, but Russia allegedly rejects them. He asks for thoughts on Putin’s intentions and whether the war aims extend beyond the Donbas into broader Ukrainian territory, given repeated peace deals rejected over territorial concessions. Jonathan responds that the conflict has never been primarily about territory for Putin. He argues the core threat is internal to Russia: Ukraine’s political and democratic developments since 2014 challenge Putin’s regime and business model, creating an intrinsic threat to his rule. He suggests Putin seeks to keep Ukraine weak as a buffer zone between Western democracy and Russia, framing democracy and Western reform as a catastrophe for Russians. He emphasizes that Ukraine’s progress since 2014—reducing oligarchic influence, fighting corruption, building civil society—constitutes the real threat, not NATO expansion. He adds that deterrence considerations, not territorial gains, dominate Russia’s calculus, making a permanent settlement difficult so long as Ukraine remains Western-leaning and democratic. Mark counters, insisting that a true NATO-Ukraine peace would align with American terms, while acknowledging publicly stated US/NATO roles as proxies. He asserts that Russia wants a permanent settlement that keeps Ukraine out of NATO and returns Ukraine to constitutional neutrality, arguing that the Kyiv regime’s repression of Russian-speaking East Ukraine makes concessions unacceptable. He claims that the US and Europe have used media and NGOs to influence Ukraine, but notes that before full-scale war, Ukrainian media was oligarch-influenced, and that since 2014 independent outlets have proliferated, challenging Zelensky’s government. He contends that US funding via USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy served to promote Western values, and that Russia views NGOs as foreign-influenced instruments rather than genuine civil society. Mike asks whether US and Western funding of NGOs represents a push to gain influence inside Ukraine, and whether this influences Russia’s calculations. Jonathan acknowledges NGO funding sometimes lacked a coherent strategic objective but aligns with traditional Western aims like freedom of navigation and press, while noting Russia’s suspicion of foreign influence. He argues that Ukraine now has a diverse media landscape, with ministers’ accountability increasing, and he states that Ukraine’s East Ukrainian population at times favors greater autonomy or varied allegiances, though not necessarily alignment with Russia, and cautions against overgeneralizing. Mark returns to the NGO funding debate, noting Russia’s use of government-backed NGOs is far less extensive than Western interference prior to 2014. He argues that civil society funded by a foreign government is not a genuine civil society. He attacks the West’s “freedom of navigation” narrative by pointing to recent US actions in the Caribbean and US actions in international waters, challenging the validity of Western claims about universal freedoms. He also accuses the Kyiv regime of suppressing opposition and bans on 21 political parties, while disputing the extent of Western influence in shaping Ukrainian politics. The conversation shifts to Russia’s broader strategic goals and the potential for a freezing of lines. Mark argues that freezing lines is impossible for Russia because it would leave Donbas, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia under a Kyiv regime deemed anti-Russian by Moscow. Jonathan emphasizes that the conflict could only end with a regime change in Kyiv, or a fundamental political transformation in Ukraine, suggesting that peace is unlikely while the Putin regime remains in power. He predicts that Russia seeks to erase perceived internal threats and shift Ukraine away from the West, whereas Mark asserts that Moscow’s aim is not limited to limited territorial gains but to neutralizing Ukraine politically. They discuss Western rearmament: Germany’s move toward conscription and Europe’s overall buildup, with concerns about domestic political forces (AFD, Le Pen, Meloni) possibly aligning with Kremlin narratives. Jonathan warns that European rearmament could be destabilized if friendly parties gain influence, while Mark argues that Europe’s rhetoric is not matched by decisive deterrence, prompting continued Russian pressure. Towards the end, Mike asks whether either side believes negotiations will lead to a real settlement. Mark says no; he believes the war will end on the battlefield with neither party accepting the other’s terms. Jonathan agrees that the conflict may endure for generations, with a possible hybrid warfare phase if direct conflict escalates, and he notes that China could benefit strategically if Europe becomes preoccupied or destabilized. In closing, Mike thanks the guests, who acknowledge the complexity and intractability of a definitive peace in the near term.

We've seen 5 waves of NATO expansion, with military bases and attack systems now in Romania and Poland. Ukraine may also join NATO, further increasing their presence. We didn't threaten anyone, they came to our borders. Instead of treating Russia as a possible ally, they kept breaking us up and expanding NATO to the East. We expressed our concerns, but they don't care. We prioritize our own security.

The speaker argues that there is ongoing lying and distortion of historical facts, along with constant attacks on Russian culture, the Russian Orthodox Church, and other traditional religious groups. They claim Western elites are destroying family structures, cultural and national identities, and normalizing perversions and child abuse, including pedophilia, as part of the social order. They allege that clergy are being forced to bless same-sex marriages. The speaker downplays private life interference, stating that adults have the right to live as they wish and that Russia has always respected this, and will continue to do so without intruding on private life. They urge a reminder from sacred texts, asserting that family is defined as a union of a man and a woman, and claim these core religious texts are being questioned. The speaker notes that the Anglican Church plans, at least for now, to consider the idea of a gender-neutral God, and questions what such a change would mean, suggesting that many in the West understand they are being led toward a spiritual catastrophe. The speaker characterizes Western elites as "going insane," describing it as an unfixable problem, while refraining from judging their mental state as a solution. The central message is a duty to protect children from what is described as degeneration and degeneracy, with a firm commitment to defend and safeguard the younger generation from these influences.

Speaker 0: It is an indictment of your own leadership. And in countries across Europe, the leaders feel that way. Russia is an embarrassment to them because it is, relatively speaking, thriving. And so they all, as one, backed the Biden administration's plan to have a war with Russia. And let's stop lying. This was not an unprovoked invasion. Putin just randomly went over the line into Eastern Ukraine and stole these oblast. He stole this land that belonged to another people. That's a total lie, and it's not a defense of Putin to call it out as a lie because it is, and everybody knows it now. The truth is that in 2001, Putin, same guy, same leader, asked the Bush administration in person directly to George W. Bush, I would like to join NATO. I would like to join the defensive alliance that exists to keep me from moving west into Western Europe. In other words, you won. I'm joining your team. And due in part to his own limitations as a leader and due in part to the counsel that he received from Condoleezza Rice at the time, George w Bush turned down that offer and prevented Russia from joining NATO. And the guest we're gonna speak to in a moment, if you're wondering if he has a good track record of calling future events, said at the time, this decision to turn down Vladimir Putin's it's twenty five years ago, Vladimir Putin's request to join NATO, to join the West, to all be in it together, to work together, this decision made by the Bush administration guarantees a collision with the West. We are now on a collision course. And, of course, he was absolutely right because NATO didn't want Russia because NATO wanted a war with Russia, and boy, they got it. And so from 2001 all the way to 2022, twenty one years, NATO moved inexorably east surrounding Russia. And many times, again, this is not a defense of Russia. It's just a fact. Many times, the Russian government under Putin said, woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Are threatening our core national interest, which is not to have other people's missiles on our borders back off. And then in 2014, the Obama administration overthrew the government of Ukraine to put an American puppet in there, thereby sealing the fate of nations. When that happened, and Sergei Karganov said it at the time, you have just guaranteed a war in Ukraine that will destroy Ukraine.

Speaker 1 argues that 'this will be a peace agreement, not a ceasefire,' forcing the U.S., Russia, and Europe to define peace beyond a halt. He says the war reflects 'an unnecessary set of provocations from the West, not the unprovoked war of aggression by Russia.' He favors Ukraine's security through neutrality, insisting 'Ukraine's real security is neutrality' and 'Neutrality is desirable.' He envisions a monitored security arrangement via the UN Security Council, with 'Russia is one of the guarantors of peace because it's got security interests that need to be respected alongside Ukraine.' He notes 'there was no treaty to end World War II' and that 'promises unfulfilled by the West of no NATO enlargement.' He criticizes Western leadership as 'a gang of the rankest amateurs' and laments 'the Russophobia is rampant and wild' in Europe, urging renewed collective security discussions.

Russia is consistently portrayed as acting against American interests, particularly with its alliance with China and its invasion of Ukraine. This action, while wrong, was driven by Russia's concern over Ukraine potentially joining NATO and becoming a satellite of the United States with American weapons. The speaker argues that Ukraine's government isn't fully sovereign, alleging it was installed by a CIA coup. They highlight that during peace talks in Istanbul, a potential agreement was disrupted by the US, leading to further devastation and loss of life in Ukraine. The speaker questions why the U.S. is at war with Russia.

The speaker argues against accepting a one-sided view of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, citing the US's history of interventionism. They claim the US illegally bombed Belgrade, initiated wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and illegally bombed Libya. They allege the US overthrew Yanukovych in Kyiv in 2014, despite an EU-brokered agreement for early elections. The speaker states that Russia initially sought peace through negotiations, resulting in the Minsk II agreement, which was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. However, they claim the US government dismissed Minsk II, and Angela Merkel admitted it was a ploy to strengthen Ukraine. The speaker distrusts the US government and advocates for a transparent agreement between Russia and Ukraine, with both sides committing to non-intervention and NATO non-enlargement, to be witnessed by the world.

I believe the US has a history of overthrowing governments and breaking promises. The speaker mentions various instances like bombing Serbia, overthrowing leaders in Ukraine, and disregarding the Minsk 2 agreement. They emphasize the need for both sides to come to a clear agreement to avoid further conflict, with the US committing to not overthrow governments and Russia agreeing not to expand. The speaker calls for transparency and adherence to treaties for peace to prevail.

The speaker criticizes the West's actions in Ukraine, warning against provoking Putin. They highlight the threat of Islamic extremism and suggest focusing on helping countries like Syria and Iraq instead of escalating tensions with Russia. The speaker urges a shift in priorities to address the real threats facing society.

Спасибо за приглашение на конференцию, где обсуждаются важные вопросы международной безопасности. Безопасность включает не только военно-политическую стабильность, но и экономическую устойчивость, борьбу с бедностью и межцивилизационный диалог. Однополярный мир невозможен и губителен, так как он не учитывает интересы всех стран. Мы наблюдаем рост конфликтов и пренебрежение международным правом, что ведет к гонке вооружений. Необходимо искать баланс интересов и укреплять многостороннюю дипломатию. Россия готова к диалогу по разоружению и поддерживает международные усилия по нераспространению ядерного оружия. Важно создать справедливую экономическую систему, чтобы избежать радикализации и конфликтов. Россия будет продолжать проводить независимую внешнюю политику, стремясь к сотрудничеству с ответственными партнерами. --- Thank you for the invitation to the conference, where important issues of international security are discussed. Security encompasses not only military-political stability but also economic resilience, poverty alleviation, and inter-civilizational dialogue. A unipolar world is impossible and detrimental, as it does not consider the interests of all countries. We are witnessing an increase in conflicts and disregard for international law, leading to an arms race. It is essential to seek a balance of interests and strengthen multilateral diplomacy. Russia is ready for disarmament dialogue and supports international non-proliferation efforts. It is crucial to create a fair economic system to avoid radicalization and conflicts. Russia will continue to pursue an independent foreign policy, aiming for cooperation with responsible partners.

Спасибо большое. The international security landscape is far broader than military issues; it encompasses economic stability, poverty reduction, and intercultural dialogue. The Cold War left behind ideological stereotypes and double standards, and the attempted imposition of a unipolar world has failed. A unipolar world, with a single center of power, is neither acceptable nor feasible; it lacks a moral foundation and has generated new conflicts and human tragedies. The disregard for international law and the excessive use of force are destabilizing factors. The economic rise of countries like China and India reinforces multipolarity. We must work towards a balance of interests, reviving disarmament dialogue and ensuring the universal application of international law. The expansion of NATO raises concerns, and we need responsible partners committed to building a just and democratic world order for all. We support the peaceful use of nuclear technology but oppose its proliferation. Economic security requires fair competition and the rejection of political manipulation of energy prices. Russia is committed to playing a constructive role on the global stage while maintaining its independent foreign policy.