reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The video discusses the US's history of overthrowing democratically elected governments and its involvement in Ukraine. It highlights the CIA's support for neo-Nazis and far-right extremists in Ukraine, leading to the 2014 coup and the rise of the Svoboda party. The video also mentions the Azov battalion, a neo-Nazi militia that is part of Ukraine's official armed forces. It criticizes the biased portrayal of the conflict by Western media and highlights the financial gains made by the military-industrial complex. The video argues that Putin's actions in response to the coup were predictable and that much of the information presented about the conflict is propaganda.

The CIA was heavily involved in Ukraine, orchestrating the overthrow of the democratically elected government in 2014. This was due to economic interests and geopolitical strategies to weaken Russia. The conflict continues with Russia gaining control of key territories, posing challenges for the US. The State Department may seek to stabilize the situation and negotiate a peace deal to regain influence in Ukraine covertly.

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.

USAID, under Samantha Power, is accused of promoting a radical ideology that is anti-family and anti-life onto the developing world, essentially ideological colonization. The agency has been weaponized to attack conservative parties, not only in Brazil, but also in pro-America countries like Poland and Hungary. In Syria, USAID allegedly funneled over $15 billion to topple Bashar al-Assad, funding opposition groups and anti-government networks under the guise of humanitarian aid. During the Euro Maiden Uprising in Ukraine in 2014, USAID spent billions on civil society initiatives to destabilize the pro-Russian government, funding NGOs and media outlets to amplify anti-Yanukovych sentiment. When USAID acts in American national security interests, it is correct. However, it becomes detrimental when abused for political purposes and sponsoring anti-American ideologies. Pro-American propaganda is acceptable, but funding regimes that oppose American values should be avoided.

Speaker 0 describes Zelensky as an American hero and contrasts his public image with the underlying narrative. He explains Zelensky was totally apolitical, an outsider with no government experience, a comedian, and the star of a planned TV show called Servant of the People. In the show, the main character creates a YouTube video that calls out oligarchs and corruption, becomes popular, and is drafted as a protest candidate who eventually becomes president. In real life, the TV show is supported by oligarch Kolomoisky, who owned the channel and did a large, nonstop promotional push to make it the number one show, including primetime slots, ads, and crossovers with the news. In 2018, a year before the show ended, Zelensky formed a political party named Servant of the People, the same title as the show, and secretly produced another season of the show. In April 2019, he announced his candidacy on Instagram, with no campaign, no rallies, no real platform, and he skipped presidential debates; his few early press conferences were poor. Kolomoisky’s channel provided Zelensky with endless airtime and favorable polls while attacking his enemies. Speaker 0 continues that US intelligence agencies, CIA and NSA, helped by funding democracy campaigns in Ukraine—reportedly around $5 billion—funneled through NGOs, with USAID embedding advisers in Zelensky’s organization to assist the campaign. On election day, Zelensky wins with 73% of the vote. Afterward, the war with Russia occurs, he declares martial law, and elections are ended. An election in 2024 is anticipated as the result of democracy money. He asserts Zelensky is an actor in a carefully designed television show—“a construct,” akin to Epstein—an created entity that works, and asks what Americans think about his popularity. Speaker 1 responds that Americans are disappointed by the ongoing war and deaths, noting that the war’s human cost is a major failure of promises from the Trump administration, who claimed he would resolve it in 24 hours. He adds that conscripting 60-year-old men and Americans and others going to fight are part of the situation. He states that the Ukraine narrative, and wars in general, are not organic: wars like this are driven by demands for primacy, control, and wealth, rather than being spontaneous. He reflects that Putin didn’t suddenly decide to invade; similarly, the broader pattern of power is not organic. He notes the Russian soldiers were told they would be welcomed and that they had dress uniforms, and compares to expectations in Iraq, where it was promised that Iraqis would welcome forces. He asks what the Ukraine situation is really about, and comments that human war reduces to a few centers of power like NATO, China, the Soviet bloc, and oil-producing countries, ultimately converging to two leaders in a room who must kill each other, as part of the decay of empire, with the U.S. maintaining about 760 overseas military bases.

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

The Svoboda Party, formerly known as the Social Nationalist Party, has ties to Nazi Germany and its leader, Holitanybok, has openly targeted Jews and ethnic Russians. Despite being condemned as racist and antisemitic, the US government worked with them, thinking they could control the situation. Victoria Nuland from the US State Department met with Svoboda and was caught on a leaked call discussing who they would put in power. They debated whether Klitschko should be in the government and ultimately decided against it. The focus was on manipulating the situation in their favor.

The speaker describes Stepan Bandera and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists as Nazi-aligned white supremacists who murdered Jews, Poles, and Russians. After World War II, the CIA used the Galen organization to coordinate with the Banderists as a stay-behind force to fight the Soviets, resulting in a violent war until the Soviets gained the upper hand around 1953-1954. Many Banderists were imprisoned or fled to the West, where they were welcomed and maintained connectivity through diaspora funding. After being released from the gulag, they infiltrated Ukrainian society. The CIA continued to coordinate the resurrection of Banderist ideology to weaken the Soviet Union, which succeeded in 1991. In 2014, the CIA ousted the Ukrainian president and replaced him with someone the US could support, resulting in the Banderists taking control. The speaker claims the CIA has been supporting Banderist groups since 1945.

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.

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

US politicians accuse other nations of election meddling, but the CIA has a long history of interfering in foreign affairs through military coups. In one example, the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's prime minister for nationalizing the oil industry, leading to widespread violence and the installation of a US-friendly government. Declassified documents reveal the CIA's involvement in the coup, highlighting their use of propaganda and bribery. Despite claims of no longer meddling in elections, the CIA director openly admitted to continuing such actions for "very good reasons."

The truth about U.S. interference in Ukraine reveals a long history of manipulation, dating back to World War II when the CIA supported Ukrainian Nazis. This led to the rise of extremist groups in Ukraine, which were backed by U.S. interests. The U.S. orchestrated a coup against President Yanukovych in 2014, revealing deep involvement in Ukraine's politics. The ongoing conflict with Russia is framed as a struggle against a corrupt government infiltrated by neo-Nazis, threatening Russia's security. The situation is seen as part of a larger global agenda, with Ukraine being used as a pawn in a geopolitical struggle against Russia and China, which resist globalist policies. Dialogue and action are needed to address these complex issues, but the future remains uncertain.

I have a picture here of an Al Qaeda leader and they are in a USAID tent. Look who signed the check for the initial $200,000 payment to the Islamic Relief Agency, the United States Agency for International Development. USAID was running a top secret espionage program to undermine Cuba and push people to dissent. Now let me show you how much money we're talking about. It included a billion dollar sovereign loan guarantee, $320,000,000 in general assistance. Judicial Watch found that the US State Department and USAID had been giving millions to the Macedonian arm of George Soros' Open Society Foundation. To train youth movements. So USAID and those are always they're known by anybody who pays attention as CIA fronts. This is you know, the the USAID comes into a country. they start doing things, and next thing you know, we've got a revolution on our hands because that's the CIA.

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.

The speaker addressed the Security Council on the issue of whether any member state may determine Venezuela’s political future by force, coercion, or economic strangulation, stressing that the question concerns the prohibition on the threat or use of force against a state's territorial integrity or political independence under the UN Charter. The council must decide whether that prohibition is to be upheld or abandoned. Background is offered on U.S. foreign policy, described as repeatedly using force, covert action, and political manipulation to achieve regime change since 1947. The speaker cites Lindsay O’Rourke’s documentation of 70 attempted U.S. regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, noting that such practices continued after the Cold War. Regime-change actions attributed to the United States since 1989 include Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria beginning in 2011, Honduras 2009, Ukraine 2014, and Venezuela from 2002 onward, employing methods such as open warfare, covert operations, instigation of unrest, support for armed groups, manipulation of media, bribery, targeted assassinations, false flag operations, and economic warfare. These measures are described as illegal under the UN Charter and typically yielding ongoing violence and civilian suffering. Specific Venezuelan-related actions cited include: the April 2002 coup attempt known to the U.S.; funding of civil-society groups engaged in anti-government protests in the 2010s; sanctions following crackdowns; in 2015, President Obama labeling Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat”; in 2017, President Trump discussing invasion options at a UN General Assembly margin dinner. Between 2017 and 2020, sweeping sanctions on PDVSA reduced oil production by 75% from 2016 to 2020 and dropped real GDP per capita by 62%. The UN General Assembly is said to have repeatedly voted against unilateral coercive measures, and the speaker asserts that under international law only the Security Council may impose such measures. On January 23, 2019, the U.S. unilaterally recognized Juan Guaidó as interim president and soon after froze about $7 billion of Venezuelan sovereign assets abroad. The actions are framed as part of a two-decade-long regime-change effort. The speaker notes U.S. bombing operations in seven countries in the past year without UN Security Council authorization or lawful self-defense, listing Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela, and cites threats by President Trump against six UN member states, including Colombia, Denmark, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela. The speaker invokes realist theory and the League of Nations’ failure, arguing the UN was created to place international law above anarchy and urging that failure to uphold the Charter would threaten humanity. The proposed resolutions call for: the United States to cease all explicit and implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela, terminate the naval quarantine and related coercive measures without UN authorization, withdraw all military forces and forward-deployed assets from Venezuela’s vicinity, and require Venezuela to adhere to the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The secretary-general should appoint a special envoy to engage Venezuelan and international stakeholders and report back within fourteen days with Charter-consistent recommendations; the Security Council should remain urgently seized of the matter. All states should refrain from unilateral threats, coercive measures, or armed actions outside the Security Council’s authority. The speaker closes by emphasizing that the UN Charter must remain a living instrument of international law.

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.

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.

Speaker 0 discusses a 2021 Special Operations Command instruction manual under Mark Milley, described as a vision for 2021 and beyond that contained instructions and examples on how the military could work with the state department, intel services, and USAID using race riots to destabilize nations, citing “examples of some of the instruction manuals here” as one and two to destabilize nations. Speaker 1 references a declassified CIA guide written in 1983 that trains operatives in how to organize riots in foreign countries. It is described as advocating for using agitators, including hiring professional criminals, to manipulate mass meetings and assemblies of people in person, which can result in general violence. The guide allegedly instructs the case officers that “our psychological war team must develop in advance a hostile mental attitude among the target groups so that at the given moment, they can turn their anger into violence demanding the rights taken away by the regime,” with a goal to make ethnic minority groups mad at their government in a general sense so that, when triggered, they will turn that general anger into physical violence against the state they aim to overthrow. The CIA guide allegedly details getting teachers, doctors, attorneys, and businessmen recruited as social crusaders for the CIA-backed cause, with a plan for gradually building clusters of influence: “these cells,” including “10 super teachers… 10 lawyers… 10 captains of industry… 10 medical professionals,” who will each operate within their spheres of influence and, at an appropriate time, fuse the groups into a united front. It is claimed that with “a force of 200 to 300 agitators,” one can create a demonstration in which “10,000 to 20,000” participate, given access to “200 back channels, 200 human assets” built up to mobilize a large riot. Speaker 0 adds that the guide also recommended setting up job fairs near protests so that disaffected workers could gain employment. The speaker then questions as a member of Congress whether anyone in USAID gets elected to Congress or to a presidency. Speaker 1 asserts that the US secretly created Cuban Twitter to stir unrest in organized smart mobs, likening them to BLM-style mobs. He notes McSpeden, who “worked for USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives,” and explains that the term “transition” means regime change. He cites a 2009 congressional report stating that the Office of Transition Initiatives runs a program to topple governments through organized political warfare, mobilizing unions, boycotts, and shutdowns of roads, transportation systems, hospitals, and schools, and that a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Fulton Armstrong warned that even he could not obtain broad access to what USAID was doing, describing it as a secret operation. Speaker 0 closes by saying that acting in the shadows to destabilize nations using race wars and advocating that the military do it jeopardizes future generations who would have to fight such wars and operates without oversight.

The speaker argues that whenever a country defends its own people, the United States asks, “Who owns the resources?” and if the answer isn’t The US, a coup follows. The claim is that over 80 foreign governments have been overthrown or destabilized by the United States, and that most of them weren’t dictatorships, but democratically elected governments that threatened US corporate profits. The described playbook involves the CIA funding opposition groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, planting stories in the media, bribing generals, arming rebels, or collapsing a country’s economy, with the coup replacing the leader with a pro-US dictatorship. The overarching assertion is that this is not about democracy but about power and control. Key historical examples cited include: - Iran in 1953: Mosaddegh attempted to nationalize oil; the CIA launched Operation Ajax, orchestrated protests, paid off politicians, and installed the Shah, resulting in twenty-five years of dictatorship and torture under US protection. - Guatemala in 1954: President Arbenz redistributed land from the United Fruit Company, a US corporation; the CIA branded him a communist, conducted a coup, and Guatemala descended into a civil war with over 200,000 deaths. - Chile in 1973: Allende was overthrown in a US-backed military coup, and Pinochet’s regime tortured and killed thousands after Allende’s attempts to nationalize copper. - Congo in 1961: Lumumba sought African control of African resources; the CIA helped orchestrate his assassination and installed a brutal dictator who was supported for decades. The speaker adds that there are “dozens of others” beyond these cases, including Haiti, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Bolivia, and beyond, arguing that the motive is not fighting tyranny but profits and control. When a country attempts to exit the system or nationalize resources to reduce inequality, they threaten profits and the idea that another world is possible, so the CIA sabotages such efforts to prevent successful example-making, such as Libya. The conclusion is that many nations don’t trust the United States because “we’ve been the villains throughout most of our history.” The speaker invites readers to comment to receive a “forbidden reading list” of books and documentaries that “they never wanted you to find.”

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.

Speaker 1 argues that the United States has repeatedly engaged in illegal military actions and regime changes in multiple countries, starting with the bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a European state, with the aim of breaking Serbia and installing Bondsteel, a large NATO base in the Balkans, under Clinton. They claim this was done without UN authority and described as a NATO mission. Speaker 1 continues, alleging that the US has subsequently waged war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, where, according to them, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton tasked the CIA with overthrowing Bashar al-Assad. They also claim NATO illegally bombed Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and that in Kyiv in February 2014 the US overthrew Yanukovych together with right-wing Ukrainian military forces, noting that the overthrow happened the day after EU representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych for early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand-down of both sides. They assert that the US supported the new government immediately afterward, despite that agreement and without addressing it as unconstitutional. Speaker 1 asserts that Russia, the United States, and the EU were parties to the 2015 Minsk two agreement, which was unanimously voted on by the UN Security Council, signed by the government of Ukraine, and guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. They contend that Minsk II was dismissed as a holding pattern by inside-US government circles, despite the UN Security Council approval. They claim Angela Merkel later said Minsk II was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine time to build its strength, countering the assertion that Minsk II was meant to end the war. The speaker emphasizes distrust of the United States government and calls for all sides to sit down publicly to agree on terms, with both the United States and Russia committing to specific boundaries, and for NATO not to enlarge, so that a written, global judgment can be made. Speaker 2 adds that there has been an ongoing effort to create an anti-Russian platform in Ukraine, describing it as an enclave, and accusing the US and its allies of lying about not expanding NATO multiple times. Speaker 3 states that President Putin sent a draft treaty asking NATO to promise no more enlargement as a precondition for not invading Ukraine, and notes that this draft was not signed.

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

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