reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Gilbert Doktorov is asked how the Iran war is reshaping dynamics in the East, especially for Russia and China, and what the broader implications are for global order. - On Russia’s stance and reaction: Doktorov notes a gap between the Kremlin’s official positions and what “chattering classes” discuss. He observes astonishingly limited reaction from President Putin and his close foreign-policy circle to dramatic developments that could redefine regional and global orders. He contrasts Putin’s cautious, “slow-war” approach with sharper criticisms from other Russian voices (e.g., Salaviyev and Alexander Dugin) who urge moving beyond a gradual strategy. There is a sense within some Russian circles that a more assertive stance may be required, yet official channels show restraint. - On Iran’s strategic position and alliances: He points out that Iran has withstood intense pressure and maintained the ability to threaten Gulf energy infrastructure and the Strait of Hormuz, thereby sustaining global leverage despite severe attacks. Iran has managed to survive and press the global energy market, calling into question how meaningful Iran’s inclusion in BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is in practice. He notes scant evidence of meaningful Russian or Chinese military or intelligence support to Iran in public accounts, and cites Israeli claims of Russian arms shipments being denied by Moscow. - On the West’s behavior and international law: The discussion highlights what is described as the United States’ “might makes right” posture and the dismissiveness toward traditional international-law norms, including UN Charter commitments. The panelists contrast American rhetoric about legality with its real-world actions, and discuss how Russia’s and China’s responses have been cautious or critical rather than conciliatory or confrontational. - On potential military cooperation and bloc dynamics: The conversation explores whether a deeper Russia-China-North Korea alignment could emerge in reaction to US and Israeli actions against Iran. Doktorov mentions that North Korea is viewed as a, “will and determination to act,” supplying munitions such as underwater drones and missiles to Iran, whereas Russia and China are characterized as more talk than action. He argues Moscow benefits from maintaining broad, non-aligned diplomacy, but acknowledges a shift in Russian thinking after recent events toward more decisive posture. - On Europe and the US-European split: The panel discusses the European Union’s fragility and its leaders’ inconsistent responses to the Iran crisis and to US pressure. They consider European solidarity rhetoric as a cover for avoiding hard choices, with examples including Belgian leadership suggesting normalization with Russia post-conflict. The discussion reflects concern that EU leaders may be forced to confront realignments as Gulf energy supplies and US LNG leverage reshape Europe’s energy security and political calculus. - On diplomacy and pathways forward: The speakers debate the prospects for diplomacy, including possible three-way or broader security arrangements, and whether Alaska or other meeting points could offer reprieve. They note a public split within Moscow’s foreign-policy establishment about how to proceed, with internal figures pushing for diplomacy and others advocating a stronger balance of power. There is explicit skepticism about the utility of negotiations with Donald Trump and the idea that the war could end on the battlefield rather than through diplomacy. - On the Ukraine war’s interconnection: The discussion emphasizes that the Iran crisis has global ramifications that feed back into Ukraine, noting that Russia’s current posture and Western responses influence the Ukraine conflict. Doktorov highlights that the depletion of US air defenses observed in the Israel-Iran context affects Ukraine, underscoring the interrelatedness of the two wars and their combined impact on global power dynamics. - Final takeaway: The dialogue reiterates that the Iran war has a global dimension with the two wars being intimately connected; the Iran conflict reshapes alliances, energy security, and strategic calculations across Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, while signaling a potential reconfiguration of Western alliances and multipolar governance.

Gilbert Doktorov and the host discuss the recent Russian strike aimed at Lvov, using Soreshnik (Arashnik) missiles, and what it signals about NATO, Western responses, and the trajectory of the war. - Initial facts and uncertainties about the strike: The Russians did not provide a clear description of what they did or where. Doktorov says it’s unclear whether at least one or six to nine missiles were fired, and whether the targets included the largest single gas storage facility in Ukraine. He notes that if a gas storage facility were hit, it would imply enormous destruction and heat Ukraine’s heating, but no confirmation has been given about the exact damage or targets. Reports indicate several missiles were released, but the exact number and impact remain uncertain. A Ukrainian gas storage target would have produced a large explosion if hit. - Context of the attack: The strike was not isolated; it occurred amid drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles hitting multiple cities, including Kyiv. Zelensky urged Ukrainians to stay indoors, suggesting the Russians intended a larger attack. Doktorov argues this demonstrates Russian confidence that their weapons cannot be stopped by existing air defenses. He contends the attack serves as a message to the West, downplaying the significance of Western “domes” or defenses. - Western and Ukrainian reactions: Ukraine’s foreign minister called for a United Nations Security Council meeting, signaling seriousness. Ukraine’s leadership framed the strike as a response to Western provocations and ongoing escalations. - Arashnik weapon system and balance of power: There is discussion about whether Arashnik missiles have multiple warheads or dummy warheads, and how many were launched. The conversation notes that Russia’s use of the weapon, and the surrounding firepower (drones, missiles), are part of a broader strategy to exert pressure on the region and test Western defenses. - Domestic Russian dynamics and deterrence: Doktorov suggests the strike reflects pressure from within Moscow by hardliners who want a stronger, more forceful stance. He contrasts Putin’s leadership with Khrushchev, arguing Khrushchev was decisive and provocative, while Putin has been more restrained but could be compelled to show force by hardline factions. The conversation links recent events (attack on Putin’s residence, the northern energy and military infrastructure strikes, and the broadened use of missiles) to a perceived revival of Russian deterrence. - Role of the United States and Trump: The discussion covers the U.S. role and ambiguities surrounding Trump, including speculation that Trump’s policies may be both deceptive and strategic. They reference reports about Trump’s possible green light for attacks on Russian tankers and the broader implications for NATO and European security. The Financial Times editorial is cited as considering incentives and pushback to manage Trump’s Greenland agenda, suggesting Europe’s limited leverage over Trump, who could push to dissolve or weaken NATO rather than sustain it. - European strategic responses and deterrence: The editors discuss possible European tactics to counter Trump (e.g., threatening to expel U.S. troops), while recognizing that many Europeans prefer to keep U.S. military presence. They debate whether Trump’s aims include breaking NATO or extracting concessions, and consider whether European states will push back or acquiesce to U.S. leadership. - Prospects for peace and endgame: The speakers debate whether negotiations remain possible or are now merely for optics. They discuss whether a direct war between Russia and NATO could emerge if Russia escalates further, especially with energy infrastructure and civilizational effects in Ukraine. They foresee a likely “frozen conflict” outcome, with Russia annexing territories east of the Dnieper and Odessa, leaving Ukraine landlocked and largely excluded from NATO and EU integration, while warning that Western military presence and support could trigger direct confrontation if Russia chooses to escalate. - Civilians and dislocation: They emphasize that as the war intensifies, civilian suffering will grow, with mass displacement and humanitarian crises likely, particularly if Kyiv and other cities become uninhabitable due to outages and destruction. - Overall tone: The discussion underscores deep uncertainty, strategic signaling, and the perception that both Western policies and Russian deterrence are shifting in ways that could escalate or reshape the conflict, with no clear, imminent path to a settlement.

"We should advocate for an equal and orderly, multipolar world, and a universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalization, and make the global governance system more just and equitable." Leaders from across The Middle East and Asia gathered in a huge building, 'they boast that they represent nearly 50% of the world's population.' The enduring image was of three of the world's largest countries—Russia, China, and India—looking cordial, with Putin and Modi 'sharing a laugh with the Chinese leader on the sidelines, really almost literally rubbing shoulders.' Modi's first trip to China in seven years. As the summit wrapped up, the gathering signaled 'a time of global uncertainty,' with calls for some kind of newer, fairer system of government. They criticized 'a world order that's been dominated too much by The US since the collapse of the Soviet Union.'

"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."

In this conversation, Brian Berletic discusses the current collision between the United States’ global strategy and a rising multipolar world, arguing that U.S. policy is driven by corporate-financier interests and a desire to preserve unipolar primacy, regardless of the costs to others. - Structural dynamics and multipolar resistance - The host notes a shift from optimism about Trump’s “America First” rhetoric toward an assessment that U.S. strategy aims to restore hegemony and broad, repeated wars, even as a multipolar world emerges. - Berletic agrees that the crisis is structural: the U.S. system is driven by large corporate-financier interests prioritizing expansion of profit and power. He cites Brookings Institution’s 2009 policy papers, particularly The Path to Persia, as documenting a long-running plan to manage Iran via a sequence of options designed to be used in synergy to topple Iran, with Syria serving as a staging ground for broader conflict. - He argues the policy framework has guided decisions across administrations, turning policy papers into bills and war plans, with corporate media selling these as American interests. This, he says, leaves little room for genuine opposition because political power is financed by corporate interests. - Iran, Syria, and the Middle East as a springboard to a global confrontation - Berletic traces the current Iran crisis to the 2009 Brookings paper’s emphasis on air corridors and using Israel to provoke a war, placing blame on Israel as a proxy mechanism while the U.S. cleanses the region of access points for striking Iran directly. - He asserts the Arab Spring (2011) was designed to encircle Iran and move toward Moscow and Beijing, with Iran as the final target. The U.S. and its allies allegedly used policy papers to push tactical steps—weakening Russia via Ukraine, exploiting Syria, and leveraging Iran as a fulcrum for broader restraint against Eurasian powers. - The aim, he argues, is to prevent a rising China by destabilizing Iran and, simultaneously, strangling energy exports that feed China’s growth. He claims the United States has imposed a global maritime oil blockade on China through coordinated strikes and pressure on oil-rich states, while China pursues energy independence via Belt and Road, coal-to-liquids, and growing imports from Russia. - The role of diplomacy, escalation, and Netanyahu’s proxy - On diplomacy, Berletic says the U.S. has no genuine interest in peace; diplomacy is used to pretext war, creating appearances of reasonable engagement while advancing the continuity of a warlike agenda. He references the Witch Path to Persia as describing diplomacy as a pretext for regime change. - He emphasizes that Russia and China are not credibly negotiating with the U.S., viewing Western diplomacy as theater designed to degrade multipolar powers. Iran, he adds, may be buying time but also reacting to U.S. pressure, while Arab states and Israel are portrayed as proxies with limited autonomy. - The discussion also covers how Israel serves as a disposable proxy to advance U.S. goals, including potential use of nuclear weapons, with Trump allegedly signaling a post-facto defense of Israel in any such scenario. - The Iran conflict, its dynamics, and potential trajectory - The war in Iran is described as a phased aggression, beginning with the consulate attack and escalating into economic and missile-strike campaigns. Berletic notes Iran’s resilient command-and-control and ongoing missile launches, suggesting the U.S. and its allies are attempting to bankrupt Iran while degrading its military capabilities. - He highlights the strain on U.S. munitions inventories, particularly anti-missile interceptors and long-range weapons, due to simultaneous operations in Ukraine, the Middle East, and potential confrontations with China. He warns that the war’s logistics are being stretched to the breaking point, risking a broader blowback. - The discussion points to potential escalation vectors: shutting Hormuz, targeting civilian infrastructure, and possibly using proxies (including within the Gulf states and Yemen) to choke off energy flows. Berletic cautions that the U.S. could resort to more drastic steps, including leveraging Israel for off-world actions, while maintaining that multipolar actors (Russia, China, Iran) would resist. - Capabilities, resources, and the potential duration - The host notes China’s energy-mobility strategies and the Western dependency on rare earth minerals (e.g., gallium) mostly produced in China, emphasizing how U.S. war aims rely on leveraging allies and global supply chains that are not easily sustained. - Berletic argues the U.S. does not plan for permanent victory but for control, and that multipolar powers are growing faster than the United States can destroy them. He suggests an inflection point will come when multipolarism outruns U.S. capacity, though the outcome remains precarious due to nuclear risk and global economic shocks. - Outlook and final reflections - The interlocutors reiterate that the war is part of a broader structural battle between unipolar U.S. dominance and a rising multipolar order anchored by Eurasian powers. They stress the need to awaken broader publics to the reality of multipolarism and to pursue a more balanced world order, warning that the current trajectory risks global economic harm and dangerous escalation.

На Валдайском клубе 22-го заседания обсуждался полицентричный мир: инструкции по применению. Участники отметили более открытое, творческое внешнеполитическое пространство, где решения зависят от точности выверенных действий и договорённостей между многочисленными участниками. Мир становится многополярным: растёт роль культурно-цивилизационных различий, региональных объединений (БРИКС, ШОС) и общего мирового большинства, которое настаивает на консенсусе и гармонии в решении вопросов безопасности. Гегемония Запада утративала хватку; формируется система договорённостей, а не принуждения. Россия подчёркнута как важный элемент глобального баланса и устойчивости, перенёсшая санкции. Вопросы ядерного сдерживания, возможной паузы в рамках соглашений с США и Китая, а также роль Европы обсуждались на фоне украинского кризиса и ближневосточных процессов. Подчеркивается значимость культуры, традиций и взаимного уважения для мирного сотрудничества. In the Valdai Club's 22nd meeting, the multi-polar world was discussed: how to apply it. Participants noted a more open, creative foreign policy space where decisions depend on precise, well-balanced actions and agreements among many players. The world is becoming multi-polar, with rising roles for civilizational differences, regional unions (BRICS, SCO), and the common world majority advocating for consensus and balance in security issues. Western hegemony has weakened; a system of agreements, not coercion, is forming. Russia is highlighted as a crucial part of global balance and resilience, having endured sanctions. Debates covered nuclear deterrence, the possibility of a pause in treaty regimes with the US and China, and Europe’s role amid Ukraine and Middle East conflicts. Emphasis is placed on culture, traditions, and mutual respect as foundations for peaceful cooperation.

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.

They are escalating the situation, possibly expecting us to become scared. They say they want to see a strategic defeat of Russia on the battlefield. For Russia, this means the end of its statehood and its thousand-year history, which is unacceptable. If that is the threat, there is no point in being scared; we just need to follow through with what we are doing. This is the rationale I've been using, and those scheming against us are making a great mistake.

Мене не збирав Євросоюз, і мені байдуже, що про мене думають в Англії чи США. Світ змінився, і США більше не контролюють інші країни. Вони стали агресором, перетворивши Україну на залежну від обіцянок і озброєння. ООН не змогла запобігти війнам в Іраку та Афганістані, а НАТО порушило свої мандати. Захід не сприйме жодних ідей, які не відповідають його інтересам. Франція, незважаючи на свої зусилля, все ще залежить від США. Я готовий залишити цю гру, поки інші залишаються в тіні. I was not gathered by the European Union, and I don't care what England or the U.S. thinks of me. The world has changed, and the U.S. no longer controls other countries. They have become an aggressor, turning Ukraine into a dependent on promises and arms. The UN failed to prevent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and NATO violated its mandates. The West will not accept any ideas that don't align with its interests. France, despite its efforts, remains dependent on the U.S. I am ready to leave this game while others remain in the shadows.

Я не считаю это моим делом решать, кому присуждать Нобелевскую премию. Бывали случаи, когда комитет награждал людей, которые для мира ничего не сделали, и это подрывало авторитет премии. Человек мог казаться хорошим, а через месяц–два награда появлялась — за что? В итоге авторитет премии утрачен. Бог с ним, не мне судить, но достоин ли действующий президент США Нобелевской премии, я не знаю. Но он реально много делает, чтобы решить долговременные кризисы, включая кризис на Украине. Что-то удаётся, что-то нет. Возможно, ещё многое удастся достичь на основе договорённостей и обсуждений в Анкоридже; он точно старается и работает над достижением мира и разрешением сложных международных ситуаций. I don’t consider it my business to decide who should be awarded the Nobel Prize. There have been cases when the committee awarded the Peace Prize to people who did nothing for the world, and this undermined the prize’s authority. A person could seem good, but within a month or two the award appeared — for what? Ultimately, the prize’s authority is eroded. God bless it, not for me to judge, but whether the sitting U.S. president deserves the Nobel Prize, I don’t know. But he really does a lot to resolve long-standing crises, including the Ukraine crisis. Some things succeed, some don’t. Perhaps much more can be achieved through agreements and discussions in Anchorage; he definitely tries and works toward achieving peace and resolving complex international situations.

На Валдайском клубе обсуждался “Полицентричный мир: инструкция по применению”. Участники подчеркивали открытое, динамичное внешнеполитическое пространство и необходимость договорённостей, которые устраивают все стороны. Формирование “мирового большинства” через BRICS, SCO и региональные объединения подчёркивает, что решения требуют учёта интересов всех и отказа от односторонности. Россия заявляет, что “запреты не работают” и что безопасность — это “неделимость”. Вопросы Украины, ближнего Востока и угроз со стороны Запада требуют региональных решений и диалога. Россия готова к сотрудничеству с США и Китаем и считает, что полицентризм определяет будущее глобального порядка. "Policentrc world: instructions for use" was the topic at Valdai. Participants stressed an open, dynamic international space and the need for agreements that satisfy all sides. The rise of the "world majority" through BRICS, SCO, and regional unions shows that decisions require accounting for all interests and avoiding one-sidedness. Russia argues that "sanctions don't work" and that security is "indivisible." Ukraine, the Middle East, and Western pressure demand regional, negotiated solutions and dialogue. Russia is ready to work with the US and China, and believes that multipolarity will shape a sustainable global order through broad cooperation rather than coercion.

«Были случаи, когда комитет присуждал Нобелевскую премию мира людям, которые для мира ничего не сделали. Эти решения нанесли огромный ущерб авторитету этой премии.» Авторитет премии «в значительной степени утрачен.» «Бог с ним, не мне судить, но достоин или не достоин действующий президент США Нобелевской премии, я не знаю.» «Он реально много делает для разрешения сложных, десятилетних кризисов.» «Возможно, нам удастся работать по договоренностям в Анкоридже, но он точно старается и работает над достижением мира.» «There have been cases when the committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to people who did nothing for peace. These decisions have damaged the prize's authority.» The authority is «largely lost.» «God bless him, not for me to judge whether the sitting US president deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, I do not know.» «He really does a lot to resolve such complex, decades-long crises.»

Three critical developments are discussed regarding the Epstein saga, Trump’s strategy, and Putin’s perspective. - Epstein’s expanded role and its geopolitical context: It is claimed that Epstein wasn’t merely running a blackmail operation but was a key financial player in maintaining British imperial banking domination. The narrative notes that during Epstein’s first conviction in 2009, lord Peter Mandelson—current British ambassador to the United States and a figure from Tony Blair’s administration—stayed at Epstein’s house. The implication is that this links Epstein to deeper power dynamics beyond sex trafficking and political kompromat. - Putin’s comments and the postwar imperial context: In a recent interview, Putin remarked that in former colonial empires like Britain or France, they consider the United States responsible for the collapse of their colonial empires, and that this historical negativity persists. The account asserts that after World War II, the United States and Russia helped destroy these empires and assist colonies in achieving independence, a vision associated with Franklin Roosevelt’s postwar outlook, which was said to have been sabotaged when Truman aligned with British imperial schemes. Putin is said to have stressed that only sovereignty will protect Russia, and that until Russia asserts itself as an independent, sovereign power, it will not be respected. The narrative uses these comments to frame Trump’s approach to Russia and Ukraine as recognizing Russia as a sovereign nation with legitimate interests, rather than treating it as a perpetual adversary. - Trump’s counteroffense and the Ukraine question: The speaker contends that Trump understands sovereignty and has approached the Ukraine conflict from the standpoint of treating Russia as a sovereign nation with legitimate interests. It is claimed that Trump’s posture is not a capitulation to neocons or a betrayal of his base, and is connected to a broader movement toward freeing the United States from empire and imperial tools of war and money. The recent big announcement by Trump is cited as aligning with this sovereign-first strategy. Additional context is provided by Susan Kokinda, who recalls being at the 2024 Republican convention and describes Trump’s 2024 campaign momentum in a narrative tying together Epstein’s financial role, the anti-imperial aims, and the potential for a world where empires are relegated to history.

С двух сторон был нанесён удар по глобализму. Мы начали строить многополярный мир, отказываясь от либерализма и возвращаясь к традиционным ценностям. Это один фронт. Второй удар пришёл изнутри Вашингтона, что ставит в сложное положение таких лидеров, как Обама, Байден, Макрон и Кирстармер. Им теперь нужно выбирать: выступать против Америки, менять свою позицию или создавать фронт против Трампа. --- A blow has been dealt to globalism from two sides. We began building a multipolar world, rejecting liberalism and returning to traditional values. This is one front. The second blow came from within Washington, complicating the situation for leaders like Obama, Biden, Macron, and Starmer. They now face a choice: oppose America, change their stance, or form a front against Trump.

Мы не останавливаемся, потому что хотим слушать самопропаганду о Западе, который проснется и победит. Моя политика совпадает с путинской на много процентов. Россия имеет свои интересы и место в истории, которое любой правитель должен защищать. We don't stop because we want to hear propaganda about the West waking up and winning. My policy aligns with Putin's to a large extent. Russia has its own interests and place in history that any leader should defend.

Троцкизм победил в 1970-е в СССР и США, завершив холодную войну. Андропов поддержал Хельсинкский договор. Троцкизм стремится уничтожить семью, собственность и идентичность. Россия не боится технического превосходства Запада. Запад не может перезапустить военную промышленность из-за проблем с экономикой и политикой. Запад нуждается в новом сакральном центре для мотивации к войне. Украинцы не понимают современного Запада. Америка может проснуться, но не факт, что это будет в интересах Украины. Translation: Trotskyism prevailed in the 1970s in both the USSR and the USA, concluding the Cold War. Andropov supported the Helsinki Accords. Trotskyism aims to destroy the family, property, and identity. Russia is not afraid of the West's technological superiority. The West struggles to restart its military industry due to economic and political issues. The West needs a new sacred center for war motivation. Ukrainians do not understand the modern West. America may awaken, but it is uncertain if it will be in Ukraine's interests.

Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a full-throated warning to the United States and Israel against attacking Iran, saying any attack would be a grave mistake with devastating consequences. Russia also cautioned that threats of new military strikes on Iran are categorically unacceptable and criticized Washington for external interference in Tehran’s internal politics. Amid these tensions, Putin’s anger over Israel’s handling of Syria was referenced, with reports that Russia sent multiple large freight flights into Tehran in recent days. There was discussion about whether this could be connected to comments from President Trump that killings in the region might be winding down, with a reporter noting that the killing has “now stopped” and a follow-up remark that it is “winding down” despite uncertainty. The program suggested that pro‑Zionist accounts and MAGA influencers are circulating propaganda—fake death numbers from Iran and videos of protests—while questioning the reliability of such footage and calling out what was described as propaganda used to push for war in Iran. Claims were made that “the number of people killed is far higher than the 12,000” from Mark Levin’s reporting, and that Iranian body bags and mass casualties were being publicized by certain viewers, though not all claims could be independently verified due to a media blackout. Laura Loomer was cited showing footage of body bags claiming nearly 20,000 Iranians had been murdered for protesting for their freedom, while noting Mossad’s heavy involvement in Iran’s protests, including arming protesters with live firearms per Israel’s Channel 14. The discussion raised the possibility that Reuters and other sources were reporting imminent U.S. bombing of Iran within 24 hours, while also noting Trump’s pattern of weekend bombings when markets are closed. Anya Parampil of the Grey Zone, who had recently been in Iran, joined to discuss on-the-ground realities. She explained that the initial demonstrations in Iran began around rising inflation and economic hardship, worsened by sanctions that the United States has openly admitted using as a weapon. She noted that early protests were largely by pro-government or conservative segments, with the government making concessions and the president, Hassan Rouhani’s successor, acknowledging responsibility for policy decisions. Violent elements subsequently appeared, and a blackout on information has followed, with Internet cuts, complicating independent reporting. Parampil suggested outside support and covert interventions could be destabilizing the country and providing a pretext for international intervention, comparing the current situation to Syria in 2011. Parampil described the escalation from peaceful economic demonstrations to violent street actions involving armed extras, questions about who is killing whom, and the risk of a Syria-style CIA or covert foreign-backed civil conflict in Iran. She emphasized sovereignty and the Iranian people’s own trajectory, arguing that sanctions and external pressure complicate genuine domestic grievances and can undermine authentic movements. The discussion also touched on the nature of domestic sentiment: some protests were pro-government, driven by sovereignty and economic concerns, while others involved calls for reform. The participants urged skepticism about casualty figures, questioning sources funded by Western organizations and the reliability of reported death tolls amid the information blackout. They warned against rushed military action and suggested that the window of opportunity for U.S.-Israeli action might be closing, given the political clock in the United States and Israel. The program closed with notes that the Israeli media reported Mossad’s involvement and arming on the Iranian side, while U.S. reporting remained less transparent, and that the situation remained highly uncertain with conflicting narratives about who is directing violence and protests on the ground.

Live pictures show a massive parade underway in Beijing as Xi Jinping shows off his country's arsenal and military might to the world, with more than two dozen foreign leaders in attendance from Russia, North Korea, and Iran. In a speech, Xi warned that the world needs to choose, 'between peace and war.' They are commemorating the eightieth anniversary of the surrender of Japan. Xi 'has just done a review of the troops in his presidential limousine' and is 'walking up a red carpet towards the Tiananmen Gate' with Putin to his right and Kim Jong Un to his left. The SCO gathering followed diplomacy; 'The North Korean leader was not in that. He's not a member of that group, but Vladimir Putin was there,' and the message targeted 'the US' with 'bullying' and a 'cold war mentality,' as leaders urged a multipolar world order.

Colonel Douglas MacGregor and Glenn discuss the current strategic picture across Ukraine, the Russia–China–Iran axis, and the broader Western political environment. On Russia and Ukraine: - MacGregor notes a major “Cauldron battles” situation in Southeastern Ukraine, with remaining Ukrainian forces being encircled and largely annihilated by precision strike weapons, and a Russian swarm anticipated to complete the encirclement. - He identifies two focal points of Russian activity: Odessa (where Russian special operations are reportedly active at night, Odessa largely undefended with air defenses degraded) and Kharkov, with ongoing pressure toward Kyiv. He emphasizes that none of these alone solves the core problem of removing Zelenskyy’s government in Kyiv, which he describes as a facade Europeans seek to preserve. - Russia has increased its force size, adding reservists and training new draftees; options for Moscow appear to be Odessa, Kharkov, and Kyiv. Putin is watching Western European political developments to gauge timing, potentially waiting for Western government changes to move decisively. - MacGregor argues NATO is effectively irrelevant to Russia’s calculus and asserts the United States does not want a war with Russia over Ukraine, giving Moscow more freedom of action than Western audiences realize. On Russia–China relations and Europe: - Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are pursuing a bilateral strategy to mutually reinforce military and economic capabilities, forming a large continental fortress against the United States. The two powers seek to strengthen ties as they view the U.S. as increasingly belligerent. - MacGregor contends that European leaders, including Starmer, Macron, and Metz, are aligned with globalist and financial elites (referencing ties to BlackRock and others) and that personal relationships between leaders are not meaningful in the international arena; strategic interests drive policy. - He argues that many European elites’ rhetoric about Russia serves to deflect from domestic vulnerabilities and to mobilize anti-Russian sentiment as political cover. On the Middle East and Iran: - The talk about Iran is framed as not serious; MacGregor describes a plan to escalate toward regime change in Iran, driven by U.S., Israeli, and allied intelligence communities, despite Iranian resistance and regional risk. - He claims Mossad, MI6, and CIA influenced President Trump regarding Iran’s fragility, while Iran’s internal protests (economic grievances) were legitimate and quickly mischaracterized as attempts to overthrow the government. He asserts Chinese and Russian assistance helped Iran counter covert efforts, including providing satellite imagery and assisting integrated air and missile defenses. - The declared Western goal is to destroy Iran as a nation-state, with the Iranian leadership prepared to respond with full use of capabilities if attacked. He suggests a potential air and missile campaign could target the regime and strategic hubs, with the United States likely relying on high-altitude precision strikes and long-range missiles, while questioning the effectiveness and survivability of U.S. platforms like B-52s against Iranian defenses. - China and Russia are depicted as unlikely to allow Iran to be pulverized; they could intervene if Iran is near disintegration, possibly through non-nuclear actions such as a collision at sea, leveraging their submarine capabilities and influence. On European political legitimacy and future: - MacGregor connects the Epstein-related discourse in Europe to a broader critique of ruling elites, comparing the potential for political upheaval to late-18th-century France. He argues that as publics grow disillusioned with elites, there could be a crisis of political legitimacy and a shift toward more realistic leadership, with potential upheaval in Britain, France, and Germany. On Putin and future moves: - He suggests Putin views the possibility of reconciliation with Washington as unlikely, having reached somber conclusions about the prospects for meaningful agreement. He predicts Russia will act on its terms, potentially advancing toward the Dnieper River, Odessa, and perhaps Kyiv, while noting Russia does not intend to govern Western Ukraine long-term. He emphasizes that events will unfold on Russian terms, with European irrelevance in the decision-making process fading as Moscow executes its plans.

Говорящий заявил, что послал сигналы — позитивные и острые — лидерам США и Европы. Он честно и откровенно изложил ситуацию и свои взгляды, без цели угодить. Обсуждались проблемы поставок новых дальнобойных систем оружия, в том числе томагавки. «Я же сказал, что это приведёт к разрушению наших отношений, во всяком случае, наметившихся позитивных тенденций в этих отношениях.» Исход зависит не только от нас и не только от меня. The speaker stated that he sent signals — positive and sharp — to the leaders of the US and Europe. He spoke openly about the situation and his views, with no aim to please anyone. The discussion involved deliveries of new long-range weapons, including the Tomahawks. 'I said that this would lead to the destruction of our relations, at least the positive trends in these relations.' The outcome depends not only on us and not only on me.

“Who blew up Nord Stream?” “You for sure.” “I did not blow up Nord Stream.” “In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat The United States because The United States controls all the world’s media and many European media.” “The ultimate beneficiary beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions.” “We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information, and we will not achieve results.” “Germany leadership is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than its national interests.” “There are two gas routes through Ukraine.” “Open the second route and please get gas from Russia.” “The world is breaking into two hemispheres.” “The head is split in two parts, it is an illness.” “The dollar is the cornerstone of The United States power.” “USD transactions down from about 80% of Russian foreign trade to 13%.” “34% of our transactions are made in rubles, and about as much a little over 34% in yuan.” “Cooperation with China keeps increasing.” “The pace at which China’s cooperation with Europe is growing is higher and greater than that of the growth of Chinese Russian cooperation.” “Before introducing any illegitimate sanctions, illegitimate in terms of the charter of the United Nations, one should think very carefully.” “Ask Europeans, aren’t they afraid?”

Vladimir Putin presents a long, historically framed justification for Russia’s actions and the Ukraine conflict, arguing that Ukraine’s status and borders have been shaped by centuries of Russian influence, foreign domination, and shifting empires. He begins by outlining Ukraine’s origins in a narrative of a centralized Russian state forming around Kyiv and Novgorod, with key moments including the adoption of Orthodoxy in 988, the fragmentation of Rus, and the subsequent rise of Moscow as the center of a unified Russian state. He asserts that lands now in Ukraine were historically part of Russia, and that Polish and Lithuanian unions, as well as later Polish oppression and colonization, shaped Ukrainian identity as a fringe or border region rather than a separate nation. He claims documents show Ukrainian lands and peoples sought Moscow’s rule in 1654 and that Catherine the Great later reclaimed those lands for Russia, reinforcing a line that Ukraine’s borders were continually redrawn by empires. Putin emphasizes that the Soviet period created a Soviet Ukraine, and that Lenin’s decisions and Ukrainianization policies made Ukraine an “artificial state” formed by Stalin’s later redrawing of borders after World War II, incorporating Black Sea lands and other territories into the Ukrainian republic. He questions whether Hungary or other neighbors should reclaim lands lost in earlier centuries, and shares a personal anecdote about Hungarians in Western Ukraine as evidence of long-standing ethnic ties there. He suggests that post-Soviet borders were decided under coercive international pressures and that NATO’s expansion violated assurances given to Russia in 1990 not to expand eastward. The interview then moves to the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia’s expectation of a welcoming partnership with the West that did not materialize. Putin contends that NATO expanded five times despite Russian hopes for cooperation, and recounts a perceived Western willingness to undermine Russia’s security through missile defense systems, support for separatists in the Caucasus, and a “special relationship” with Ukraine. He tells a story of a 2000s-era dialogue with US leaders about a joint missile defense system, describing assurances from US officials (Gates, Rice) that such cooperation might occur, which he says later failed and led Russia to develop its own hypersonic capabilities in response. He insists that the West’s treatment of Serbia in the 1990s—bombing Belgrade and overriding UN norms—demonstrates a double standard and a willingness to ignore international law when it serves Western interests. He asserts that the Bucharest 2008 agreement promised NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia, despite opposition from Germany, France, and others, and claims that President Bush pressured European partners to expand NATO anyway. He argues that Ukraine’s move toward association with the EU would harm Russian economic interests, given their interlinked industries, and that Yanukovych’s hesitation to sign the association agreement was abruptly exploited by the West, leading to the Maidan coup in 2014. On the Donbas and Minsk, Putin states that Ukraine’s leadership in 2014 declared they would not implement Minsk and that Western leaders openly admitted they never intended to implement Minsk. He says Russia’s goal was to stop the war started by neo-Nazis in Ukraine in 2014, not to invade in 2022, and he blames the West for pushing Ukraine toward militarization and for pressuring Kyiv. He claims the current Ukrainian leadership and its foreign backers refused to engage in negotiations and even banned talks with Russia, citing Istanbul negotiations as a missed opportunity that could have ended the war many months earlier. Denazification is presented as a central objective: Putin describes a nationalist Ukrainian movement that idolizes figures who collaborated with Nazi Germany, culminating in neo-Nazi iconography and the glorification of Bandera-era figures. He argues that Ukraine’s leadership and legislature have supported or tolerated neo-Nazi symbolism, including a Canadian parliament ceremony supporting a former SS member who fought against Russians. He insists denazification would mean prohibiting neo-Nazi movements at the legislative level and removing their influence in Ukraine, and says Ukraine’s leadership has refused to implement this, contrasting it with Istanbul’s negotiated proposals that supposedly prohibited Nazism in Ukraine. Regarding negotiations and settlements, Putin says Russia is open to dialogue and that Istanbul proposals could have ended the conflict eighteen to twenty-four months earlier if not for Western influence, particularly Johnson’s opposition. He states Russia is not seeking to humiliate Ukraine but wants a negotiated settlement, including the withdrawal of troops and protection for Russian-speaking populations. He suggests that Zelenskyy’s freedom to negotiate exists, but asserts Kyiv’s decrees and the influence of the United States and its allies have prevented meaningful talks. He contends that the Ukraine conflict is driven by a Western-led alliance system that seeks to deter Russia and preserve strategic advantages, while Russia seeks a multipolar world where security is shared. In discussing geopolitics and economics, Putin argues the global order is shifting. He notes a rising China and a growing BRICS, with the United States increasingly using sanctions and weaponizing the dollar, which he believes undermines American power. He provides statistics: Russia’s share of dollar-denominated trade has fallen, yuan and ruble use have risen, and he suggests the dollar’s role as a reserve currency is eroding as countries seek alternatives. He asserts that the world should not be split into two blocs and that cooperation with China is essential, highlighting a bilateral trade volume with China around 230–240 billion dollars and saying their trade is balanced and high-tech oriented. Finally, Putin discusses broader questions about religion and identity, linking Orthodoxy to Russian national character and arguing that Russia’s spiritual and cultural ties unify diverse peoples within the country. He rejects the notion that war contradicts Christian ethics, arguing that defending the homeland and its people is a form of protection rather than aggression. Throughout the interview, Putin reframes the Ukraine conflict as a consequence of Western expansion and security policy, presents Russia as seeking peace and dialogue, and positions Moscow as defending historical legitimacy, protecting Russian-speaking populations, and resisting a re-drawn European security architecture that he argues threatens Russia’s sovereignty. He repeatedly points to missed opportunities for negotiated settlement and emphasizes that additional talks remain possible if Western leadership chooses to engage in good faith.

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.

As the self-appointed Speaker of the House, Putin stated that Russia's military is more advanced than the US's. He criticized US involvement in Ukraine, suggesting they focus on their own issues. Putin also addressed accusations of spying, emphasizing the need to uncover the true instigators of conflict. He condemned US weapon supply to other countries and criticized media for sensationalizing threats. Putin urged people to turn away from the US government and focus on their own interests.