reSee.it - Related Video Feed

During the Reagan era, we created NGOs to fight communism by establishing a soft power structure to influence the world. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was created and split into the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute. Both Democrats and Republicans were under the NED, with the intention of offering balanced perspectives as they influenced the world. But when communism fell, these NGOs didn't disband; they grew in power and money. They now see themselves as protectors of democracy, viewing any challenge to them as a challenge to democracy itself. Both Democrats and Republicans are heavily involved, even to the point where sitting members of Congress vote for money for these NGOs while sitting on them. They believe they're doing good, protecting the Western world, but it's also about the money. They tell themselves a good story.

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.

Protesters in Ukraine aim to topple the government by urging President Yanukovych to sign an association agreement with the EU. American support is expressed, emphasizing the importance of stability for investors. The focus is on peaceful resistance against tyranny, with a call for the government to show restraint and avoid violence.

The discussion centers on allegations that the United States has used or could use domestic and international mechanisms to effect regime change, including through domestic unrest and foreign influence operations. Speaker 0 describes a 2021 Special Operations Command instruction manual, framed as a vision for 2021 and beyond, that purportedly contains instructions and examples on how the military could work with the State Department, intelligence services, and USAID to use race riots to destabilize nations. He points to examples labeled as part of this manual’s guidance for destabilization via combined military-government-civilian efforts. Speaker 1 lays out a model of how revolutions are allegedly structured, starting with a government at the top and support funneled through USAID, the State Department, or other administration entities. He then describes a degree of separation through privatized NGOs, including the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, and similar organizations, with money flowing from entities such as George Soros’s Open Society Foundations through tides and government-funded NGOs like NED. He suggests money ultimately comes from the people, and that demonstrators, youth movements, a sympathetic media, and labor unions contribute to organizing protests. He outlines conditions for regime change: an unpopular incumbent, a semi-automatic regime (not fully autocratic), a united and organized opposition, the ability to quickly frame the voting results as falsified, media amplification of that falsification, an opposition capable of mobilizing thousands, and divisions among coercive forces like the military or police. He asks whether those conditions are present and implies they are. Speaker 2 cites a declassified CIA guide from 1983 aimed at training operatives to organize riots in foreign countries, including using agitators and hiring professional criminals to manipulate mass meetings, with the goal of turning general anger into violence against the regime. The guide describes creating a climate where a few hundred agitators could mobilize tens of thousands, using 200 back channels and 200 human assets to generate a 10,000–20,000 demonstration. It also notes strategies such as setting up job fairs near riots to enlist disaffected workers. He references USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), implying that “transition” is a code for regime change, and cites a 2009 congressional report warning that OTI was a foreign operation aimed at toppling governments through organized political warfare, including mobilizing unions, boycotts, and shutdowns of roads, transportation, hospitals, and schools. Fulton Armstrong’s quote is cited regarding government secrecy surrounding such operations. The speakers conclude by condemning actions conducted in the shadows, destabilizing nations using race wars to achieve political aims, and advocating that the military be involved, arguing these efforts occur without oversight.

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 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.

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.

In May 2019, just after Zelensky's election, a memo from US-funded NGOs outlined strict "red lines" he could not cross, threatening political instability if he did. This memo, backed by the US State Department, USAID, NATO, and various NGOs, dictated Zelensky's actions on security, foreign policy, economic issues, and cultural matters. It restricted Ukraine's ability to negotiate with Russia, join NATO, or oppose the IMF. The memo effectively controlled Ukraine's sovereignty, presenting a façade of democracy while ensuring US interests were prioritized. The influence of these organizations raised questions about true democratic governance in Ukraine, as they operated under the guise of civil society while enforcing US directives.

Maidan Independence Square has become a war zone, with ongoing clashes in Kyiv. The situation is dire, with at least 70 dead and rising, marking a significant revolution. The U.S. has invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine amid these tensions. NATO has expanded into 13 countries near Russia's borders, raising concerns about escalating conflict. Robert Perry, an investigative journalist, highlights that a segment of the Ukrainian population supports extreme right-wing positions and has formed militias that intensified violence during the Maidan protests. What began as peaceful demonstrations has turned increasingly violent.

Speaker 0 asks about the organizing principle behind the activism, noting a lack of a specific list of grievances beyond longtime Democratic criticisms, and wonders if there is something truly animating the movement. Speaker 1 responds with the hammer analogy: for thirty years since the end of the Cold War, the instrument used to overthrow democratically elected governments has been that a country with an autocracy may have voted for its leader, but it functions like an autocracy. This justifies overthrowing governments that people voted for in the name of democracy, with examples including Hungary under Orban, which is hugely popular but autocratic, and El Salvador, where protests faded once USAID money stopped. The president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, embraced the shutdown of USAID, which has been used to influence internal politics there. A notable article in Notice about four months earlier defended USAID employees and warned the Trump administration that shutting down USAID would be a big mistake because it would unleash professional government toppling specialists. This professional class is described as a career path to learn how to network with organizations that topple governments on behalf of the State Department, the CIA, USAID, and their donor-drafted class in private equity, hedge funds, and multinational corporations that profit from post-coup governments. Speaker 1 explains that activists label these efforts as “no kings,” attempting to frame the issue as autocracy. He notes the irony that these activists are partnered with global networks in Canada and the United Kingdom that have kings, and they have had to rebrand in different countries. He recounts a scene in London where their network protested outside the US embassy, shouting “no US kings,” while in the same context they themselves are connected to monarchies. He emphasizes the incoherence of the current stance, especially given that we are less than a year out from a sweeping democratic victory—control of the House, the Senate, the electoral college, and a popular vote—defined as the opposite of a king-like monarchy. Speaker 1 concludes by saying that with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and that all these NGOs are set up for democracy promotion against autocracy, which is how they obtain 501(c)(3) tax-deductible status. They must label regimes as autocracies even if they are far from that description.

Pro-EU protests in Kyiv continue for a second day, with around 1,000 demonstrators, including opposition leader Vitali Klitschko, urging the government to reconsider its decision not to sign a significant trade deal with the EU. Robert Perry, an investigative journalist, reflects on the protests and the role of NGOs in Ukraine. While many NGOs support legitimate causes, some are funded by governments and may prioritize those interests over the needs of the people they claim to help. He recalls how, during the 1980s, the CIA faced discredit due to scandals, leading to a shift in strategy under the Reagan administration, moving away from traditional CIA operations.

Speaker 0 notes how a protest has suddenly morphed into a movement aiming to topple an elected government, calling it a revolution. The agenda they are waiting to advance is for President Kenukovic to return to Brussels and sign the association agreement (AA). They state: “We’re here from America.” They emphasize the importance of signing the AA, arguing it would put Ukraine on a path to a stable and predictable business environment that investors require. They assert, “The free world is with you. America is with you.” They refer to themselves as “I am a litigator.” They warn that “it would be a huge shame to see five years’ worth of work and preparation go to waste if the AA is not signed in the near future,” urging to “finish the job.” Speaker 1 mentions active involvement in what’s been happening in the UK. Speaker 0 expresses a view on government formation, saying, “I don’t think cleats should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.” They designate Yadze as “the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience,” and note they are not going to comment on private diplomatic conversations. Speaker 1 calls for the protest to stand peacefully against tyranny and asks the Ukrainian government to demonstrate strength without resorting to violence, emphasizing the importance of dealing with peaceful protest.

The speaker argues that the “radical left” has lost control of American culture and politics, with their “powers” having peaked and begun to “ebb,” and that a “shadow regime” is being “gutted.” They claim that the remaining radical left insurgency is now publicly dominated by radical Islam, communists, and other branches of a “radical cult,” and that if Democrats lose in November, they may fracture and “die.” The speaker also asserts that even the “climate cult is dying.” They contrast Europeans in Paris during the World Cup discovering that American venues have air conditioning while people die from heat stroke, presenting this as evidence of an “American renaissance.” The speaker claims an “existential catastrophe” for Democrats would follow a loss in the 2026 midterms, arguing that pressure is on Democrats to win swing districts and not Brooklyn. They state the public sees Iran taking demands seriously, Israel not being “elated,” and that Trump won without letting neocons drag him into “another forever war,” alongside claims that Trump is pivoting to addressing the Ukraine war next while funding a “nuclear renaissance.” The speaker then claims these “radical operations” were perfected in Eastern Europe and brought to the Americas, citing Gene Sharp and “Maidan” operations. They reference “From Dictatorship to Democracy” (1993) by Gene Sharp, asserting it explains “nonviolent struggle” using psychological, social, economic, and political weapons. They claim Sharp received grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and that revolutions occurred in Serbia (2000), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004), and Kyrgyzstan (2005). For Ukraine (2004), they say George Soros’ network financed the Orange Revolution, that Soros’ Ukrainian outfit spent $1.65 million from autumn 2003 to December 2004, and that it ran exit polls challenging the election outcome leading to a coup. They cite the Guardian as reporting roughly $65 million in total U.S. spending, with money routed through USAID and NED. They further claim the same model was applied under Obama starting in 2011 in North Africa and the Middle East, including “Arab Spring,” which they say installed the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo and put terrorists in control of Libya. They state Associated Press reported Sharp’s work circulated among Egyptian activists and that social media platforms such as Twitter were incorporated in a second generation of “Rainbow Revolutions.” They cite an article by General Valery Grasimov (February 2013) warning that “color revolutions” can become armed conflict and chaos, calling the “very rules of war” changed. The speaker then claims that ten months later, the Maidan coup was launched, creating the Donbass Civil War and ultimately war between Russia and Ukraine, killing hundreds of thousands. The speaker lists two factors: a “public-private partnership” perfected regime change “without firing a shot,” and a desire to use this “rainbow warfare” to create existential conflict with Russia. They describe global control as the stated goal, asserting that destroying Christianity and the West is necessary for globalist systems, and they claim Trump’s 2016 election disrupted this second factor through the “Russiagate coup,” with Mark Carney and Obama coordinating elites and Zelensky following orders. They also say this war is difficult to end and that reviving “patriotic Christian nations” across the Western Hemisphere is part of a strategy. They claim that on Trump’s first day back in office, U.S. foreign aid was frozen, USAID’s website went down, headquarters closed, and Marco Rubio canceled 83% of USAID programs, followed by USAID ceasing as an independent agency and being folded into the State Department. They state this removed democracy and governance funding, including civil society grants, election programs, and NGO support. They cite election outcomes across countries (Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras, Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru) as shifting rightward, while naming Brazil and Mexico as holdouts. For Brazil, they allege Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes issued secret orders forcing social media deletions, jailed people for online speech, shut down X in 2024, and convicted Jair Bolsonaro in 2025, leading to a 27-year sentence. They claim the U.S. ran a similar censorship-capable model during COVID via Stanford’s Election Integrity Partnership and the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), asserting the GEC was turned from counterterrorism to “counterpopulism” after 2016, and that Rubio shut it down in April 2025 for silencing and censoring Americans’ voices. They state Rubio sanctioned Moraes and stripped his U.S. visa, and that Trump put tariffs on Brazil over Bolsonaro’s persecution. They claim Lula da Silva asked Xi Jinping for Chinese experts to help regulate Brazil’s social media, and that Brazil adopted a Chinese social credit agenda. The speaker argues U.S. vulnerability is concentrated in major cities and highlights New York, claiming the Red-Green Alliance of radical left communists and radical Muslims aims to change the city, and they describe Darialitsa Chevalier’s posts and rally statements as justifying the October 7 massacre. Finally, they claim the “Save America Act” is the cornerstone of Trump’s summer campaign, including holding the Senate “hostage” until passage, using Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence to raise pressure, and pledging to hold up FISA 702 surveillance until election reform. They conclude that “election rigging” is the last remaining pillar, and that the color revolution in America has been waged for over 10 years (Russiagate, Ukraingate, caravans, COVID, J6, and riots in Minnesota) and is “failing,” with Trump still not eliminated and Democrats facing mounting pressure.

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

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

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

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.

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

We're discussing a phone call between Victoria Nuland, the top US diplomat for Europe, and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt. They talk about getting Sari to come in on Monday or Tuesday with the help of the UN and EU. The United States has supported Ukraine since its independence in 1991, investing over $5 billion to promote democracy, good governance, and civic participation. Americans support Ukrainian protesters who want closer ties to Europe. The United States has always been concerned about the alliance between Germany and Russia, as it poses a threat. The combination of German technology and capital with Russian resources and manpower has historically worried the US.

The protesters in Ukraine aim to topple the government by urging President Yanukovych to sign an association agreement with the EU. They are supported by the US and other nations. The focus is on creating a stable business environment and preventing violence against peaceful demonstrators.

In 2014, the U.S. successfully overthrew the government of Ukraine, with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland handing out supplies to protesters as they ousted the Yanukovych government. Afterward, the eastern side of the state broke away, rejecting the new U.S.-installed government. Crimea then voted to join the Russian Federation. These events ended the concept of free speech diplomacy as a U.S. government good. The U.S. had invested $5 billion into Ukrainian media institutions, according to Nuland in December 2013, setting up independent media companies and sponsoring media assets in the region.

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.

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.

More clashes in Ukraine's capital, Kyiv, as it turns into a war zone. Questions of credibility arise after a leaked chat between top US diplomats discussing restructuring the Ukrainian government. The US government has a history of wanting regime change in various countries, and they have allies in the media and government to control the narrative. NATO has expanded into 13 countries, leading to concerns about the start of Cold War 2.0.

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.