reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses the US plan to expand NATO to Ukraine, despite Ukrainian opposition. Viktor Yanukovych's neutrality stance angers the US, leading to a crisis and coup in 2013. US involvement in the insurrection is evident, with senators openly supporting the demonstrators in Kiev. Victoria Nuland's actions, including distributing cookies, further highlight US interference in Ukraine.

Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians in building democratic skills and institutions, promoting civic participation, and good governance. These are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. The U.S. has invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these goals, which will ensure a secure, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine.

Victoria Nuland, the top US diplomat for Europe, had a phone call with US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt. They discussed getting Sari and Von Kymun to agree that Sari could come in Monday or Tuesday to help glue the situation with UN and EU assistance. 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 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, fearing their union could pose a threat. The US fears German technology and capital combined with Russian natural resources and manpower.

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.

The authenticity of a recorded conversation between Assistant Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Piatt is not confirmed by Speaker 1. They refuse to discuss the details of the private diplomatic conversation. However, Speaker 1 does not deny that the recording is authentic. Speaker 2 argues that the conversation reveals the US actively influencing the formation of a future government in Ukraine. Speaker 1 defends this as normal diplomatic behavior. Speaker 2 insists that publicly claiming the decision is up to Ukrainians while privately arranging a deal is contradictory. Speaker 1 downplays the significance of the recorded phone call. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 declaring they are finished.

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.

Speaker 0: You broke this incredible story about NSA intercepts showing Ukrainian officials basically discussing a plot to funnel back millions in American aid money back to the Biden 2024 campaign through, you know, none other than USAID. I mean Yeah. Really, I guess it shouldn't surprise us anymore, but it should shock us. You know, can you walk us through it and, you know, what else we need to know? Speaker 1: Yeah. Let's give everybody a little quick history lesson because the context of this is important. In 2016, we know that The US the Ukrainian embassy in The United States was advocating for Hillary Clinton's campaign. They the ambassador even wrote an op ed doing so. Yeah. In the period before that, they were enriching the Ukrainian gas company. Barisma was enriching Joe Biden's son Hunter. So Ukrainians generally have had a leftward lurch in their support in the American political system, sometimes very overtly, like putting Hunter Biden on the board or Burisma or their ambassador writing an op ed saying they would prefer Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in 2016. Then we get through the whole impeachment scandal. We're told, don't believe any of that Ukrainian liberal preference. Turns out it was all true. It wasn't a conspiracy theory. Hunter Biden and the Democratic party were deeply entangled with the Ukrainian government, Ukrainian businesses. And we lived through that. Joe Biden's in the White House. And in 2022 and early twenty three, his fundraising is lagging even though he's the incumbent. He's got the problems with the Afghanistan withdrawal, questions about his mental acuity, enormous unpopularity, particularly when it comes to an open border. And so it's at that moment when NSA guys with headphones on are listening and they intercept a series of conversations. Some of these are probably on email. And it's a senior government official in the Ukrainian government of president Zelenskyy talking about a plot, that has been discussed with USAID workers, our foreign aid agency workers in Kyiv to give a $2,300,000,000 clean energy grant to Ukraine. Now Ukraine's in the middle of a war with Russia. The last thing they're gonna be building is some clean energy project. They're trying Speaker 0: to They're not building solar panels and you're getting bombed every day. It's probably not a great use of a panel. Speaker 1: Complete ruse. And they even say so. Listen, the intercept suggests that this is not gonna be a justified project. But you'll spend the money, and then by the time they discover it, won't it be recoverable. And the goal is take that money, then you're gonna give it to nongovernmental organizations, nonprofits, then they're gonna hire subcontractors with the USAID money. And then those subcontractors are gonna hire American companies. And those American companies are then gonna move the money into the coffers of Joe Biden's 2024 campaign and the Democratic National Committee. And they said they hope to arrange this in such a way that 90% of the money that originally came from you and I taxpayers through USAID to Ukraine would ultimately be laundered into the DNC and Joe Biden to help his 2024 campaign. That's what's been captured. That was only recently discovered. That intercept or series of intercepts were not ever brought to the attention of anyone at the FBI or anyone during the Biden years. Tulsi Gabbard just recently found it. She's asked the USAID to go look and see if they can find the contract. Did it happen? Was there some fraud involved? And so there's a beginning of an investigation to find out what whether whether what was discussed ultimately transpired, and we should know answers in a couple of weeks. Speaker 0: I mean, do we trust

The opposition in Ukraine includes extremist groups like Svoboda, which has ties to Nazi Germany. The leader of Svoboda, Holitanybok, has openly targeted Jews and ethnic Russians. Despite being condemned by the EU, the US government backed these extremists, thinking they could control the situation. Victoria Nuland from the US State Department was caught on a leaked call discussing who they would put in power. They didn't think Klitschko should be part of the government.

Since 1991, the US has supported Ukraine in building democratic institutions and promoting civic participation and good governance. Over $5 billion has been invested to help Ukraine achieve its European aspirations for a secure, prosperous, and democratic future.

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.

US officials are discussing events in Ukraine, including brokering a future government with UN involvement. Private diplomatic conversations are common, but public statements reflect US government positions. There are differing opinions on including certain individuals in the government. Discussions are ongoing about the best approach moving forward.

Gilbert Doktorov and the host discuss the evolving, multi-layered negotiations surrounding the Ukraine war, stressing that talks involve more than Ukraine and Russia, extending to US-Russia dynamics and broader European and global interests. - They note that trilateral talks among Ukraine, Russia, and the US have begun, with the first phase completed. The conversation emphasizes that the US-Russia dimension is crucial because the conflict is viewed as a proxy war between NATO and Russia, and that “the US toppled the government in Ukraine” with intelligence support, military planning, weapons, and targets coordinated through backchannels. The implication is that any durable settlement would require some deal between the US and Russia to de-escalate the proxy confrontation. - On US-Russia relations, Speaker 1 identifies several dimensions: renewal or non-renewal of New START, and the functioning of embassies, as negative signs, but points to positive changes elsewhere. He highlights Kislyov’s Sunday night program remarks, noting Russia’s proposal to contribute $1,000,000,000 to become a permanent board member using frozen US assets (total US assets frozen around $5 billion in equivalent value). He mentions that Trump was asked about using frozen assets and reportedly declined, but the implication is that Moscow views this as a potential lever. Kislyov also notes that the additional $4,000,000,000 in frozen assets would be allocated to reconstruction in Palestine, and that Russia’s participation on the board would influence regional diplomacy, including with Palestinians and Israelis. - The discussion suggests that the absence of official diplomacy (e.g., embassies) does not necessarily indicate a lack of progress, arguing that backchannels between Putin and Trump are functioning well. The speakers discuss the broader context of Russia’s strategic posture, including alleged advancements in space-based and other new military capabilities that are not fully captured by New START, and the sense from Moscow that the US is preparing a space-based missile system that would enable first strikes, a point the Russians emphasize in public discourse. - On Ukraine, Zelensky’s stance is described as uncompromising: Ukraine will not cede territory and will demand security guarantees, which could undermine a neutral status. The dialogue suggests Zelensky is using a posture of firmness to buy time for negotiations, with Ukrainian leadership potentially exchanging assurances for a broader settlement that could include regime change and financial support for reconstruction. - The potential for compromise is discussed in terms of strategic timing and leverage. The Russians’ primary interest is regime change, and there could be an understanding with Trump about a democratic replacement in Ukraine, possibly replacing Zelensky with a pro-Russian administration under conditions tied to substantial monetary reparations for reconstruction. The timing and mechanism, including potential referenda or buyouts, are considered critical elements that could determine the settlement’s architecture. - The European role is analyzed as increasingly fraught. Europe’s diplomatic engagement has been limited, but Moscow is open to leveraging European assets in a peace process. Lavrov’s stated position that talks with Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission leadership are unlikely, and the broader fragmentation within Europe (France, Germany, Finland, the EU leadership) are highlighted as complicating factors. There is speculation about European figures who could bridge talks, such as Finland’s Stubb, though there is skepticism about Kalas’s leadership within the EU. - The speakers speculate that Davos and Trump’s stance have reshaped European perceptions of US leadership, with European elites increasingly questioning the reliability of US-backed security guarantees. The conversation closes with an expectation that the year 2025 will be dominated by Trump as a central variable in resolving global issues, and that Moscow remains optimistic about achieving a settlement with Washington while signaling a tougher stance toward Ukraine if needed. Overall, the discussion portrays a complex, interwoven set of negotiations across US-Russia, Ukraine-Russia, and European dynamics, with backchannels, asset controls, potential regime-change considerations, and timing as key levers for reaching any settlement.

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.

The speakers discuss the situation in Ukraine, American support, NATO, and sanctions on Russia. They touch on Trump's views, French involvement, and the importance of Republican support. The conversation also covers Armenia's shift towards the West and the need to strengthen ties with key figures. The speakers express concern over Putin's ambitions and emphasize the need for unity and strategic alliances. They end on a positive note, reminiscing about past meetings and expressing a desire to stay connected.

The discussion centers on how US officials handle diplomacy publicly and privately, particularly in relation to Ukraine. Speaker 0 notes that US officials talk about world issues because that's part of diplomatic work, and mentions that the secretary met with the opposition and stopped by a meeting with the foreign minister. He says it’s up to the people of Ukraine, including officials from both sides, to determine the path forward, but indicates that there should be no surprise that discussions about events on the ground are taking place. Speaker 1 counters that this is more than discussions, describing it as “two top US officials that are on the ground discussing a plan that they have to broker a future government and bringing officials from the UN to kind of seal the deal.” They suggest this signals that the US is “midwifing the process,” not merely offering suggestions, and imply private diplomacy is aiming to shape a post-conflict outcome with UN involvement. Speaker 0 acknowledges that private diplomatic conversations happen and involve deliberations about what involvement the UN can have and what engagement should occur on the ground. He says such discussions shouldn’t be surprising and that there is a range of options under consideration, including private interagency process discussions and what is conveyed publicly as US policy. Speaker 2 challenges this by arguing it’s not honest to claim there is no opinion and that the process is entirely up to the people of Ukraine. They point to Egypt as a counterexample, asserting that there is a public stance that differs from private discussions. Speaker 0 distinguishes between private conversations within the interagency process and what is publicly conveyed as US policy. He asserts a responsibility to convey the government’s position while also noting that a range of options are being discussed. Speaker 1 presses the distinction further, asking what happens behind closed doors when private deals are discussed versus publicly stating that the decision lies with Ukrainians. They emphasize the perceived difference between privately “cooking up a deal” and publicly acknowledging Ukrainian decision-making. Speaker 0 concludes by saying they would disagree with Speaker 1, arguing that they are overstating and overqualifying a few minutes of a privately recorded phone call.

It's surprising that a call between Trump and Putin occurred, and even more so that negotiations were discussed as the meeting concluded, leaving many unable to react. This raises concerns that Trump and Putin might reach agreements without considering the interests of Ukraine and Europe. This development comes after the new US Defense Minister, Pete Haxhes, during his visit, stated firmly that US troops would not participate in security arrangements in Ukraine. The US also doesn't believe that NATO membership is a realistic outcome of negotiations. Haxhes dismissed Ukraine's hopes of regaining all occupied territories, including Crimea, calling it unrealistic.

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.

Victoria Nuland, the top US diplomat for Europe, had a phone call with US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt. They discussed getting Sari and Von Kymun to agree that Sari could come in Monday or Tuesday to help glue the situation with UN and EU assistance. Since 1991, the US has invested over $5 billion in Ukraine to build democratic skills, institutions, civic participation, and good governance, preconditions for achieving European aspirations and ensuring a secure, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine. The US supports Ukrainian resistance, as protesters want closer ties to Europe, not Russia. The US's main interest for a century has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, fearing their union. The US fears German technology and capital combined with Russian natural resources and manpower.

Victoria Nuland, the top US diplomat for Europe, had a phone call with the US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt. They discussed getting Seri and Ban Ki Moon to help "glue" things together with UN and EU assistance. 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 primordial interest has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, as united, they are the only force that could threaten the US. The US primordial fear is German technology and capital combined with Russian natural resources and manpower.

US officials are discussing global issues, including events in Ukraine. They have met with the opposition and the foreign minister, but the path forward is up to the people of Ukraine. However, it is not surprising that discussions are happening. There are claims that the US is actively involved in brokering a future government and bringing in UN officials. The US government acknowledges private diplomatic conversations but also has a responsibility to convey its position publicly. There is a difference between private discussions and public statements. Some argue that if the US is privately working on a deal while publicly stating that it is up to Ukrainians to decide, it is contradictory. However, others believe that the private conversation was just a couple of minutes and should not be overstated.

The discussion focuses on Victoria Nuland, the U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, and her significant role in the Ukraine conflict. Nuland is portrayed as a key figure who instigated the war by promoting U.S. interests in weakening Russia, drawing on her background and personal motivations tied to historical grievances. The narrative explores her career trajectory, connections to influential figures like her husband Robert Kagan, and her involvement in the 2014 Maidan Revolution. It suggests that her actions have led to the current state of corruption in Ukraine, which, in turn, has fueled the ongoing conflict with Russia. The speaker expresses concern over the potential for escalation and the broader implications of Nuland's influence on U.S. foreign policy and global stability.

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.