TruthArchive.ai - 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.

Victoria Nuland, the top US diplomat for Europe, had a fascinating phone call with US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt. Pyatt said that Sari and Von Kymun agreed that Sari could come in Monday or Tuesday to help glue the situation with the UN and the EU. The United States has invested over $5,000,000,000 since 1991 to assist Ukraine in building democratic skills and institutions, promoting civic participation and good governance, all preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. The US supports Ukrainian resistance, as protesters want closer ties to Europe, not Russia. The US's main interest has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united, they are the only force that could threaten the US. The US fears German technology and capital combined with Russian natural resources and manpower.

We're discussing Victoria Nuland, the top US diplomat for Europe, and her phone call with US Ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt. Nuland highlights the importance of international support, mentioning that both Seri and Ban Ki Moon have agreed to assist Ukraine. Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the US has invested over $5 billion to help build democratic institutions and promote civic participation, essential for Ukraine's European aspirations. The American public supports Ukraine's resistance, as protesters seek closer ties to Europe rather than Russia. The US has historically been concerned about the potential alliance between Germany and Russia, viewing it as a significant threat due to their combined resources and capabilities.

The US believes sanctions and threats of sanctions partly forced Yanukovych from office and wants to support the new Ukrainian government. US involvement included senators and State Department members on the ground, plus Obama administration sanctions. The US believes its clear position helped lead to the regime change. Supporting Ukraine allows it to determine its own future, though it may appear as a US-Russia conflict. The US has an economic interest in Ukraine joining the EU due to trade agreement benefits. Yanukovych was elected in 2010 with elections scheduled for 2015. Questions arise about foreign ministers supporting protests, and the presence of far-right politicians, including fascists and xenophobes, within the Ukrainian opposition who are against the EU. Yanukovych lost legitimacy by using force against peaceful protests, prompting US involvement. Foreign leaders were present to support the right to protest. While radical elements and anti-Semitism existed within the opposition, they were a small minority. There is confidence that the new government will be inclusive and tolerant. The Foreign Relations Committee will work to ensure radical elements do not have a central role in the coalition government.

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

As secretary of state, I was deeply involved in getting rid of a prosecutor. The whole administration, including Obama, the vice president, and the ambassador, worked towards this goal. We knew that for Ukraine to succeed and win the revolution, they had to remove that prosecutor, and they did.

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.

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.

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.

The conversation involves Victoria Nuland, a top US diplomat for Europe, and US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt. They discussed UN involvement to "glue" the situation, along with the EU. Since 1991, the US has invested over $5 billion in Ukraine to build democratic skills and institutions, promote civic participation and good governance, and help Ukraine achieve its European aspirations. The US is interested in Ukraine because protesters want closer ties to Europe, not Russia. The US has historically fought to prevent a relationship between Germany and Russia, fearing their combined power. The US fears German technology and capital combined with Russian natural resources and manpower.

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.

"Hopefully, what we're trying to do is bring about a peaceful transition here that would stop the violence, would give the Ukrainian people, what they unfortunately have not with different revolutions that have taken place, a real legitimate society. This is a grassroots revolution here. It's been peaceful except for when the government tried to crack down on them, and the government hasn't done that since. Well, I don't think that we would be taking on Russia. I am very pleased with secretary Kerry's statement, our deputy secretary Victoria Newland who was here. We're not talking about military action. We're not talking about blockades. We are talking about the possibility of sanctions if they continue to brutally repress their people. That that would require some action on our part just because that's what The United States Of America is all about."

We believe our sanctions and threats played a role in Yanukovych's removal. Now, we must support the new government. The US has been actively involved, with senators and State Department members present. Our clear stance has aided regime change. While some criticize our selective involvement, a peaceful transition in Ukraine will position the US as a key ally. This is about enabling Ukraine to determine its future. While it may seem like a US-Russia conflict, it's about supporting Ukraine's wishes. The US has an economic interest too as Ukraine potentially joining the EU could significantly benefit US trade. Yanukovych's use of force against peaceful protests is the reason we engaged. While radical elements exist within the opposition, the movement largely rejects them. We are confident the new government will be inclusive, and we'll ensure radical elements don't dominate.

I think it was our role, sanctions and threats of sanctions that forced, in part, Yanukovych from office. The United States should support this new government and pursue an EU-oriented path. "The clear position of The United States has in part been what has helped lead to this change in regimes." We are in the middle of negotiating a new trade agreement with Europe, and we do 40% of our trade in Connecticut with Europe. Yanukovych "lost his legitimacy to govern when he used force to try to break up these protests." McCain and I went to defend human rights as protests grew. Foreign ministers joined the square to support protesters, while the movement largely rejects radical and prejudicial ideas; "it will be part of our job ... to make sure that those kind of more radical elements don't have a seat at the middle of the table."

I am not the pen pal, but the phone pal of Poroshenko and Arseny Yacineuk and now the speaker. For the past 4 years, I have been on the phone with them for 2 to 3 hours a week. Some in Europe argue that Russia already controlled Ukraine before these presidents came into power, so why bother with sanctions? Last year, I was authorized to say that we would provide $1 billion, but only if the chief prosecutor was fired. We are not playing games, we know that if we give the EU an excuse, at least 5 countries will want to leave. We are working on a detailed roadmap for Ukraine's political steps and security guarantees from Russia. It won't be easy, but I am convinced they will do it.

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?

Senator John McCain addressed protesters in Kyiv, hoping to bring about a peaceful transition and a legitimate society for the Ukrainian people. He stated this is a grassroots revolution that has been peaceful, except when the government tried to crack down on them. Regarding the US role, McCain said he doesn't think the US would be taking on Russia by supporting the protesters. He expressed pleasure with Secretary Kerry's statement and Deputy Secretary Victoria Nuland's presence. He stated that these people love the United States and freedom, and supporting them aligns with America's traditional support for those who want a free and democratic society. McCain clarified that military action and blockades are not being considered, but sanctions are a possibility if the Ukrainian government continues to brutally repress its people, as that would require action from the United States.

When the Maidan happened, I was asked to meet with the new Ukrainian prime minister to discuss the economic crisis. I went to Kyiv, and while I was there, I was told that the US had paid for all the people at the Maidan. People call it a spontaneous revolution of dignity, but where do all the media outlets, the organization, the buses, and the people come from? It's clear that this was an organized effort.

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

As secretary of state, I was deeply involved in getting rid of the prosecutor. The whole administration, including Obama, the vice president, and the ambassador, worked towards this goal. We knew that Ukraine needed to remove the prosecutor to succeed in the revolution. I made it clear to them that if the prosecutor wasn't fired, they wouldn't receive the $1 billion. Eventually, the prosecutor was fired.

Where we both remain acutely concerned about the Assad regime's campaign of violence against their own citizens. The Assad regime's continued brutality is galvanizing international opinion. The United States will continue to work with our partners to turn this growing consensus into increased pressure and isolation for the Assad regime. President Assad has lost the legitimacy to lead, and it is clear that Syria would be better off without him. Yesterday, The United States imposed new sanctions, and ambassador Ford delivered a clear message to the Syrian government. Immediately stop the violence, withdraw your security forces, respond to the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people for a democratic transition in concrete and meaningful ways.

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.

I met with the opposition and the foreign minister this weekend. It's up to the Ukrainian people to decide the path forward, but discussions are happening. These are more than discussions. Top US officials are on the ground, discussing a plan to broker a future government, involving the UN. The US is midwifing the process. These are private diplomatic conversations where we discuss UN involvement. It's dishonest to say we don't have an opinion. There's a difference between private discussions and our public position. As diplomats, we discuss a range of options. Saying privately you're cooking up a deal, then saying publicly it's up to Ukrainians, those are different positions. Diplomatic discussions are sensitive, but those are totally different positions. You're overstating a private phone call.

Senator John McCain is in Kyiv supporting peaceful protests for a legitimate society. He praises the Ukrainian people's peaceful demonstrations for change. He believes the US should consider sanctions if the government continues to repress its people, emphasizing America's support for freedom and democracy. This is not about military action, but standing up for what the US believes in.

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.