reSee.it - Related Video Feed

As secretary of state, I was involved in the efforts to remove a prosecutor. The whole administration, including Obama, the vice president, and the ambassador, worked towards this goal. We believed that for Ukraine to succeed and overcome the revolution, known as the Maidan, it was crucial to get rid of that prosecutor. And they succeeded in doing so.

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.

The truth about US interference in Ukraine, dating back to WWII when CIA worked with Ukrainian Nazis, led to the rise of extremist groups like Svoboda and Right Sector. Yanukovych's refusal of IMF's offer sparked a US-backed coup orchestrated by the State Department and Joe Biden. The push for war against Russia serves globalist interests, not patriotism.

I went to Kyiv to announce a $1 billion loan guarantee. I had asked Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk to take action against the state prosecutor, but they didn't. They argued that I didn't have the authority to withhold the money. I insisted that they call the president and told them they wouldn't get the money unless the prosecutor was fired. Eventually, they agreed and the prosecutor got fired.

Checklist: - Identify the core timeline and security-related turning points shaping Russia–US/West relations. - Preserve the sequence of events and the key claims as stated. - Exclude filler, repetition, and off-topic discussion. - Highlight unique or surprising assertions without adding new judgments. - Translate only if needed; here, keep as original English. Putin was not anti-American or anti-West when he came to power; he wanted normal relations. Even then this did not set things on an inevitable course, but the real changes that put things in a disastrous course were on the security side. First, the expansion of NATO, then the bombing of Belgrade in 1999, seventy eight straight days of some harebrained, terrible scheme of Madeleine Albright, to break apart Serbia, which was Russia's ally, and create Kosovo and put the largest NATO military base, Bundesliga, in Kosovo to cover Southeast Europe. Putin watched that. He didn't like that at all. Then came 9/11, and Putin said, okay. We wanna cooperate with you. We can help. We also face insurgencies. We don't we don't like this. The US more or less brushed Russia off at that point. In 02/2002, The US did something even more provocative and profound, which was to abandon the anti ballistic missile treaty. This for Russia was a first class security disaster, because the ABM treaty was viewed as a protection against The US nuclear first strike, and this was viewed in an incredibly harsh way by Russia, and it is a massive danger. Then immediately in 2003 came the Iraq invasion over Russia's absolute objections over the UN Security Council, absolute objections. Then in 2004 came a NATO enlargement to seven more countries, including the three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, including two Black Sea countries, Bulgaria and Romania, and including two Balkans countries, Slovakia and Slovenia. So by 02/2007, then the the temperature was up to here, and president Putin gave at the Munich Security Conference a very strong message. Stop this. Stop this. You are pressing right up against our red lines. Do not go further. And then famously, in 02/2008, The US announced a policy that had actually been adopted fourteen years earlier, but it made it public, which was the demand that NATO would enlarge to Ukraine and to Georgia in the Caucasus. And this for Russia was unbelievable. Now Russia would be surrounded by NATO in the Black Sea region. And European leaders at the time called me privately. What is your president doing? This is so reckless, so provocative. By the way, many of these same leaders now are completely mum. We love The United States. This has nothing to do with NATO. This war, of course, it's about NATO. The whole thing is about NATO. It's always been about NATO. And this was true in 02/2008. And then quickly to bring the story up to date, in 02/2011, again, these neocons doubled down. We're gonna overthrow Syria, where Russia happens to have a a naval base. We're going to overthrow Libya, where Russia has an ally. And we then took steps and in 2014 overthrew the government of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, on 02/22/2014. This was a coup in which The US played a significant role. Sad to say, I saw some of it with my own eyes, which I did not wanna see, but I did see some of it with my own eyes. The US was up to its neck in that coup. And of course, the Russians knew it. They even did us a favor of intercepting Victoria Nuland's phone call with the The US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeffrey Piot, who's now a senior state department official. Victoria Nuland's my colleague at Columbia University, unbelievably.

I visited Kyiv for the 12th or 13th time to announce a $1 billion loan guarantee. I asked for action against the state prosecutor, but they didn't comply. I threatened to withhold the money unless the prosecutor was fired. He was fired within 6 hours.

I believe our role, including sanctions and threats, partly forced Yanukovych from office. We've been very involved in supporting the new government in Ukraine. The clear US position has aided this regime change. If this is a peaceful transition, the US will be seen as a great friend. This is about supporting Ukraine in determining its future. While some see this as a US-Russia conflict, it's about supporting Ukraine's wishes. The US has an economic interest too. We're negotiating a trade agreement with Europe. With Ukraine potentially joining the EU, it could mean billions in economic opportunities for the US. We shouldn't hide this interest.

I declare for those who will watch or are watching this information: Mr. Pruchinov, Mr. Yatsenyuk, Mr. Tekhnebok, and those with them — I know openly and reliably that these are funded agents of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. In addition, Mr. Yatsenyuk is the first deputy head of the Freemason lodge in Ukraine, and its head, if anyone doesn’t know, is Mr. Pinchuk, the son-in-law of Mr. Kuchma. All the deceptions that were carried out and all the commands of Mr. Yanukovych were simply puppetry in the hands of Mr. Honchuk, the best and Kravchuk. They sold him as well. They gave him commands—don’t let Berkut in, then let Berkut in, then storm or not storm—and then, when people were finally allowed to take up arms, their vile betrayal. Primarily it’s the work of Mr. Kravchuk and Mr. Kuchma. Not many know that Mr. Kuchma, after the so-called victory in the Maidan revolution, was targeted thanks to Mr. Pinchuk. The Americans lifted the arrest on his accounts, and he lives freely. And after they sold Yanukovych, I’m not saying he’s good; I’m not his admirer. He was wrong in many ways. Although he remains the legitimate president, whether we want it or not, whether those stinkers-who-smell, or not. I’m tired of listening, of not listening. Anyone can insult a person. But first we must understand what prompted this. What was the motive? The main lawlessness was committed by Mr. Rinat Akhmetov, Mr. Kolomoyskyi, the head of the World Jewish Congress, Mr. Fer t ash, and others. All these oligarchs. At first, it looked like two clans fighting for a feeding trough, as in 2005. Now it’s simply a direct occupation of Ukraine by the United States through stand-ins. I’m not afraid of this; I have enough strength to defend myself. But my wife remains there. And not only my wife. There are many people who want to threaten Russia. Many want help from Russia to cleanse Holy Rus from the invasion of red-brown plague and American Zionists. I am not an anti-Semite, God forbid; I am an internationalist. I was raised in the spirit of Soviet internationalism. But let people not confuse. I have no hatred for simple Jews. They are not to blame. They also endure from their landlords, so to speak, Orthodox Jewish organizations, Hasidim, in particular, organizations like Chabad, which rule this black feast. So let no one accuse me of anti-Semitism. But, in the end, I can say, as they say in Odessa, who are Semites and who are anti-Semites. You know? No, tell me. Semites are those who drink until seven; anti-Semites are those who drink after seven. This is how they say in Odessa. I love Odessa humor, genuine old Odessa humor. But I hate what they do. Imagine a scene on the Maidan: representatives of the Greek-C Catholic Church stand; representatives of the so-called autocephalous, self-proclaimed church, who during the war walked around showing to the Germans, to those in the family at the front children, in the partisans and so on. Also the so-called False Patriarchate of Kyiv, which papal Rome did not recognize in its time, led by Mr. Mykhailo Denysenko, who still calls himself Filaret, and is anathemized for sacrilegious acts and many other offenses against the church. Now he tries to join a secret assembly with Right Sector, in particular with such fascist organization as Svoboda. This is their true name; the Social-National Party of Ukraine. So that all may know: Svoboda is simply because they realized they cannot appeal on their own to politics, so they will go under their true banner. Then there is a law draft, a deputy-Briton, I think; I’m not strong with names, but I know it is 100 percent the bill banning the Moscow Patriarchate. Prohibition of the Russian language in Ukraine, up to criminal prosecution. All this is the work of ultraright forces with the support of American fascists, so to speak. World imperialism. That’s it. Maybe I’m not a skilled speaker, but I’ve had enough. I’ll repeat: it sounds banal. Thank you very much.

We believe our sanctions and the threat of more sanctions played a role in Yanukovych leaving office. We've been actively involved in supporting the new government, and the US has been seen as a friend in helping this transition happen peacefully. This is about supporting Ukraine in determining its own future. While it might seem like a US versus Russia situation, it's about supporting Ukraine's wishes. The US also has an economic interest, as Ukraine's potential inclusion in the EU could greatly benefit our trade agreement with Europe. Yanukovych lost legitimacy by using force against peaceful protests. Foreign leaders were there to stand up for the right to protest. While some radical elements exist within the opposition, the movement largely rejects those ideas. We're confident the new government will be inclusive, and we'll work to ensure those radical elements don't dominate.

"Ukraine is not a sovereign state. It does not have internationally recognized sovereign borders." "It's still part of Russia. It has been since the tenth century." "Ukraine has been the center of the globalists for decades and decades." "CIA, they've been working this in the Ukraine for seventy years, building up a resistance to everybody and everything because they needed to bring the Soviet Union down, but they also want the resources that are in the Ukraine." "With so much rapid information passing by us like bullets on a raging battlefield, it gets difficult to understand where we are, where we're going, and what's true." "The affirmative task we have now is is to actually create a new world order." "Every prime minister of Israel has been a Khazar Ashkenazi Jew with no connection to Semite people at all." "The Khazarian mafia today."

I believe our sanctions and threats played a role in Yanukovych's departure. We've been actively involved in Ukraine, and our clear stance has aided the change in regimes. If this transition is peaceful, the U.S. will be seen as a great friend. This is about supporting Ukraine's self-determination. While some see it as a U.S.-Russia struggle, it's about supporting Ukraine's wishes. We also have an economic interest, as Ukraine's potential inclusion in the EU could boost trade with the U.S. Yanukovych was elected, but he lost legitimacy by using force against peaceful protests. Our presence, like that of foreign ministers, was to defend human rights. While radical elements exist within the opposition, the movement largely rejects them. We'll work to ensure these elements don't dominate the new government.

I visited Kyiv for the 12th or 13th time to announce a $1 billion loan guarantee. I asked for action against the state prosecutor, but they didn't comply. I threatened to withhold the money unless the prosecutor was fired within 6 hours.

I think we should be thanking the president for trying to bring this up at the conference. Have you even been to Ukraine to know what problems we have? I've been there, and I've seen the stories. I know that you bring people there on a propaganda tour, Mr. President. Do you disagree that you've had problems?

I established a foundation in Ukraine prior to its independence from Russia, which has been active and influential in recent events. I appreciate criticism, but it should align with my views. During the upheaval, members of Congress, notably John McCain, visited Ukraine, showing support for those challenging their government. McCain's presence reassured the protesters in Maidan that they had backing from the United States. He emphasized that the struggle was about the future they desired and deserved for their country. What about the US ambassador?

During the 1989 revolutions, you funded dissident activities and civil society groups in Eastern Europe, including Poland and the Czech Republic; are you doing similar work in Ukraine? He replies that he set up a foundation in Ukraine before its independence from Russia, and that the foundation has functioned ever since and played an important part in events now. He says Ukraine can assert independence from Russia and move toward the West, though Putin will try to destabilize it; the large majority of Ukrainians are determined to be independent, and with freedom, free media, and a flourishing economy, his regime would be unsustainable. He is asked about antisemitism in Ukraine; he notes antisemitism is part of the DNA of that part of the world, and there is antisemitism.

When the Maidan revolution happened, I was asked to advise the new Ukrainian prime minister on the economic crisis. I flew to Kyiv, and while there, I was told that the US had financed the people at Maidan. This supposed spontaneous revolution of dignity raises some questions. Where did all the media outlets come from? Who organized this? Where did the buses come from, and who called all those people in? It was clearly an organized effort.

Nuland suggested contacting Klitschko directly, while also mentioning involving the United Nations for a political solution. The audio of this conversation was notably clear. During a visit to Independence Square in Kiev in December, Nuland and Payatt distributed food to protesters and police. This incident is embarrassing for the U.S. and gives Russia grounds to claim that the opposition is being manipulated by Washington, a claim that Barack Obama has consistently denied. The clip reportedly surfaced online, allegedly posted by the Russian deputy PM, though this has not been confirmed.

I outline the speaker’s central claims about George Soros, the CIA, and global political influence. The speaker contends that George Soros has been one of the CIA’s most valuable private assets for over forty years, acting as the civilian, deniable funding arm of American regime-change operations worldwide. Because of this, Soros is not only allowed in the United States but protected there, enabling him to operate with impunity, which the speaker says explains his arrogance and continued influence. The speaker traces a pattern of Soros-backed “color revolutions” starting with Serbia in 2000, refined in Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004, and the Arab Spring in 2011. They assert that logos for USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the Open Society Foundations appear in all these cases, framing Soros as central to these movements. According to the speaker, the Arab Spring served as a trial run for Europe’s migrant crisis. They claim that in 2011 the CIA and Soros turned that playbook on Libya and Syria. Gaddafi allegedly warned in March 2011 that removing him would unleash millions to flood Europe from Africa; eight months later, Gaddafi was dead, Libya descended into chaos, and migrant waves began as predicted. By 2015–2016, the speaker asserts, battle-hardened jihadists and economic migrants were crossing the Mediterranean with iPhones, prepaid cards, and Twitter guides written in Arabic, described as the same social media mobilization tactics used in Kyiv and Tahrir Square. Wayne Madsen is cited as having called this pattern out in 2015, described by the speaker as a deliberate CIA social-engineering operation to fracture Europe from within, applying the same playbook to new targets. The speaker then asserts that the United States has been subject to this strategy from 2020 to the present, pointing to the summer riots of 2020 as an example. The claim continues that Soros’s Open Society Foundations donated at least $33,000,000 to groups that organized and sustained the 2020 riots, and that Soros-backed NGOs provided lawyers, maps, and logistics for the southern border caravans, as well as funding to influence police departments and district attorneys in major cities, effectively helping to elect them. The speaker argues that Soros is implementing the color-revolution playbook “on us now,” with the target being ordinary Americans rather than foreign nations. A historical reference is made to JFK, who allegedly spoke of splintering the CIA after the Bay of Pigs betrayal, a chance JFK did not realize, leaving the world the speaker claims the CIA built. The speaker notes that Hungary, a country of 9 million, has passed Stop Soros laws and expelled his operations, asking why the United States cannot do the same, and suggests finishing what JFK started.

In 2014, riots known as the rebellion occurred in Ukraine, which were secretly financed by USAID, a CIA front, with $5 billion. These riots led to a coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government. A month before the coup, Victoria Noland, a high-level official in the State Department, had a secret call with the US Ambassador, where they discussed selecting a new US-backed cabinet for Ukraine. This raises questions about democracy and whether Victoria Nuland influenced the government. The CIA has a history of overthrowing governments, including democracies, with 83 cases between 1947 and 1997.

Ukraine is part of Eurasia, specifically Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Bloc, almost like Russia's Robin. The people in the streets are fighting for a better future, to modernize, liberalize, and become a democracy tied to the West instead of remaining a corrupt, authoritarian country tied to Russia. Putin offered a $15 billion bribe to maintain ties. The western, younger, more liberal parts of Ukraine took to the streets because they knew they had no future being Russia's vassal. America isn't overtly celebrating Ukraine's potential shift because we don't want Russia to intervene militarily. We want to distract Russia, like with the Olympics, rather than provoke a violent reaction. The longer this conflict goes on, the more NATO is strengthened, and arms deals are happening with NATO. Instead of de-escalation, there was an influx of money and weapons.

Pro-EU protests in Kyiv continue for a second day, with around 1,000 demonstrators joined by opposition leader Vitali Klitschko. The protests are in response to the government's decision not to sign a major trade deal with the EU. Investigative journalist Robert Perry explains that some NGOs are funded by governments and serve their interests rather than the people they claim to help. In the 1980s, the CIA's activities were exposed, leading to the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to carry out similar operations. NED and other US agencies supported political groups, trained activists, and influenced media to advance US foreign policy interests. Mustafa Nayan, founder of Dromadskaya TV, used social media to bring crowds to Maidan Square. Symbolism and catchy slogans were employed to unite protesters, and organizations like Huromadske TV received donations from the Dutch and US embassies and George Soros' NGO.

In February 2014, the US actively worked to overthrow Yanukovych. You can hear this in the phone call between Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Peter Piatt. It's fascinating. In the call, I mentioned that Klitschko shouldn't be in the government, it's not necessary or a good idea. Yatseniuk is the right person because of his economic and governing experience. Also, "fuck the EU." We need to do something to make this situation better.

I established a foundation in Ukraine prior to its independence in 1990. Figures like George Soros were unfortunately everywhere in these events. This team consisting of people like Newland, Soros, and Biden, acted in favor of Hillary Clinton's interests and tried to prevent Mr. Trump from being elected. We can look at the Arab Spring in North African countries such as Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt, as well as the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, and the Orange Revolution in 2004. The Revolution of Dignity in 2013 and 2014, all of this is related to his activities. He continued his operations in 2015 and 2016. Hunter Biden had deals in Ukraine, being on the board of directors of an oil and gas company in Ukraine. This explains the economic interests of the Biden family. Then there's the matter of supposed Russian election interference.

In 2014, riots known as the rebellion occurred in Ukraine, but it was not widely known that the US was financing these riots. The riots led to a coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government, which refused to align with the West. A month before the coup, a secret call between Victoria Nuland, a high-level official in the State Department, and the US ambassador was recorded and made public. In the call, they discussed choosing a new cabinet for Ukraine, essentially picking a US-backed government before the old one was overthrown. This raises questions about democracy and the role of organizations like USAID and the CIA, which have a history of overthrowing governments, including democracies.

In 2014, three foreign ministers from Poland, Germany, and France arrived in Ukraine to sign an agreement between the government and the opposition. However, just two days later, a coup d'etat took place, orchestrated by our American allies. The European guarantors of the agreement claimed ignorance. This event, along with the desire to bring Ukraine into NATO, has led to the ongoing tragedy in the Donbas region.