TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

They don't want this NATO expansion, they know it's not in their security interest, and on and on. They said if we continue to expand NATO, they may have to look to China. I responded by saying, good luck with that. And if that doesn't work, try Iran. I was serious when I said that to them, and they know that that is not a viable option. Every one of those leaders acknowledges they need to look west, even though they resent it. The question is, this expansion is designed to shut them out, but not as a direct military security threat.

What if Russia breaks the ceasefire or peace talks? What do we do then? Okay, what if they broke it? I don't know. They broke it with Biden because they didn't respect him, or Obama. They respect me.

Okay, so what happens if Russia breaks the ceasefire or these talks? It's a valid question to ask. What if a bomb drops on your head right now? What if they broke the agreement? With Biden and Obama, they didn't respect them, but they respect me.

If Putin attacks a NATO ally, we will defend every part of NATO as required by treaty. It's important to clarify that we do not seek American troops to engage in combat in Russia or against Russia.

Russia will remain a dangerous opponent for a long time, and we must include Ukraine in NATO. The only way to have trusting relations with Moscow is through a decisive defeat and a reset in Russia, where the Russian population and politics abandon their deeply rooted imperial, aggressive, and colonial ideas.

During discussions with Zagunov and Lebed regarding NATO expansion, they expressed concerns about its impact on their security interests, hinting at a potential alliance with China. In response, I told them, "lots of luck." If that doesn't work, try Iran." I was serious. Despite any posturing, these leaders recognize their need to align with the West, even if they resent it. The issue isn't necessarily a direct military threat, but rather the potential for complete isolation.

If Putin attacks a NATO ally, we will defend every part of NATO as required by treaty. It's important to clarify that we do not seek American troops to fight in Russia or against Russia.

I know Putin well, and we had a remarkably good, blunt relationship. I'd describe it as brutally blunt. While never physical, I believe in being brutally honest with people in private. It's also important to avoid embarrassing them publicly if you want their cooperation. In my experience, most leaders appreciated my honesty about our interests and objectives. They also valued discretion when possible. Putin, specifically, never reneged on a personal agreement he made with me. Behind closed doors, he kept his word and could be trusted.

I can be tougher than anyone, but that's not how you make deals. We had a president who talked tough about Putin, but Putin still invaded Ukraine. Diplomacy is the path to peace and prosperity. America is a good country when it engages in diplomacy, like President Trump is doing. Putin occupied parts of Ukraine, including Crimea, back in 2014. Obama was president then, followed by Trump, then Biden, and now potentially Trump again. Nobody stopped Putin back then. People were dying on the contact line. I even signed a ceasefire deal with him in 2019, along with Macron and Merkel, but he broke it, killed our people, and didn't exchange prisoners.

I found it interesting that Putin didn't criticize Joe Biden or NATO during our conversation. As an American, it would feel strange to badmouth the American president to a foreign leader, even if I have doubts about Biden's presidency. It just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

The speaker discusses the idea of Russia joining NATO and relates it to recently declassified documents. He reads a 1954 note from the Soviet government to NATO member countries, stating: "Relying on the unchanging principles of our peaceful foreign policy and striving to reduce tension in international relations, the Soviet government expresses readiness to consider jointly with interested governments the question of the USSR's participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." He then presents the response to that proposal: “There is no need to underline the utterly unrealistic nature of such a proposal.” The speaker recalls an earlier moment, about a year prior, when, in response to the question about Russia possibly joining NATO, he said, “why not?” He notes that former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, while traveling in Europe, responded that this is not being discussed now. The core discussion is framed around understanding whether NATO is a military organization and whether Russia would be welcome there. The speaker suggests that NATO is indeed a military organization and questions whether Russia would be wanted there. He asserts that NATO “is moving toward our borders,” and he ascribes to this movement a purpose or inevitability that shapes Russia’s position on the issue. In summarizing the underlying basis of the Russian position, the speaker emphasizes the perception that NATO’s character as a military alliance and its movements toward Russia’s borders inform a strategic stance against expanding membership to include Russia. He contrasts the historical openness expressed in 1954 with the contemporary response that such a proposal is not realistic, and with current statements from Western officials indicating that Russia’s accession is not under consideration. The narrative ties together declassified archival material, a past provocative-appearing suggestion, and present-day geopolitical calculations about NATO’s reach and military posture near Russia.

I don't believe Donald Trump will be president again. If Putin is betting on that, he will be in for a surprise. That's my first point.

We've seen five waves of NATO expansion, with military bases and attack systems now deployed in Romania and Poland. Ukraine is also being considered for NATO membership. We didn't threaten anyone; they came to our borders. Instead of treating Russia as a potential ally and building trust, they kept breaking us up and expanding NATO to the East. We expressed our concerns, but they didn't care. We prioritize our own security.

The speaker expresses deep sadness about the current situation with Russia, noting extensive time spent in Russia in the 1980s and 1990s and connections with people who ran the government then. He argues that a fundamental error by the United States in the mid to late 1980s and early 1990s was the expansion of NATO. He emphasizes that after the Cold War was won, there was debate about NATO’s future, and the idea of expanding it arose despite it being a bureaucracy that “works.” The speaker recounts a key episode from the reunification negotiations with Germany. He says that during those talks, Gorbachev and Jim Baker discussed the treaty, which stated that there would be no NATO troops in East Germany, and Baker told Gorbachev that if Germany were reunified and NATO expanded beyond that, NATO would not expand “one inch further east.” The speaker states that Gorbachev told him and others that Baker had promised this interpretation, and that Gorbachev also told Coal (likely a reference to other Russian officials) the same thing, which he says was new information. He asserts that the first Bush administration kept this promise, or at least appeared to honor it, pursuing a partnership for peace that Russians somewhat liked. With the Clinton administration, the speaker asserts, the first thing done in his first term was to expand NATO. He questions the rationale, referencing Strobe Talbot’s Foreign Affairs article on why NATO was expanded, and implies the reasons were insufficient. In conversations with Russians who ran for president in 1996 and 2000, he recalls a question from the Urals about why the Americans were expanding NATO, noting that although NATO is a military alliance, Russians might not understand puts and calls but do understand tanks. He quotes a Russian politician who says, “Russians might not be able to understand puts and calls, but they certainly understand tanks.” The speaker uses a banking analogy: a friend or supporter goes bankrupt, and you call to offer encouragement; instead, the United States “kicked them when they were down” by expanding NATO. He contends that this expansion created the justification for authoritarianism’s return in Russia and characterizes it as a blunder of monumental proportions. He reflects that at Oxford he studied Cold War origins and believes the Russians were responsible for much of it, describing the expansion as born of bureaucratic inertia within NATO, or, in the worst case, a self-fulfilling prophecy among certain Clinton-era officials who believed Russia would forever be the enemy. Looking forward, the speaker suggests a missed opportunity for a strategic partnership built on common long-term threats and cooperation, noting that Russia would have been a significant partner given its oil and regional influence. He concludes with a sense of profound sadness, arguing that the United States created a problem that could have been avoided and lost an important long-term partner, especially on today’s most threatening issues.

We've seen 5 waves of NATO expansion, with military bases and attack systems now in Romania and Poland. Ukraine may also join NATO, further increasing their presence. We didn't threaten anyone, they came to our borders. Instead of treating Russia as a possible ally, they kept breaking us up and expanding NATO to the East. We expressed our concerns, but they don't care. We prioritize our own security.

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.

I think President Putin believes NATO's expansion is the reason the Russian army is at NATO's doorstep, but we certainly don't see it that way. NATO has expanded, but that's a good thing. I'm pretty sure it wasn't NATO who ordered troops to the Ukrainian border or destabilized Eastern Ukraine. NATO is a security alliance, not an anti-Russia alliance. For fifty years, it was an anti-Soviet alliance. I'm not going to pretend to know what goes on in President Putin's mind. NATO has expanded, but there's no reason to think the expansion is hostile. We're blaming Russia for violating Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Speaker is saddened about Russia, arguing the fundamental blunder was the expansion of NATO in the mid eighties and early nineties. He cites the Germany reunification talks: Gorbachev and Jim Baker discussed 'no NATO troops in what was in East Germany' and 'NATO if you agree to reunification of Germany in NATO, no expand NATO will not expand one inch further east.' The first Bush administration kept its promise; Russians liked that. Clinton expanded NATO in his first term. He cites Strobe Talbot's article on why expand NATO. A Russian politician asked, 'Russians might not be able to understand puts and calls, but they certainly understand tanks.' He says expanding NATO 'kicked them when they were down' and was a 'blunder of monumental proportions.' He argues a 'strategic partnership' on 'common threats over the long term' could have worked; 'Russia would be back.' We've lost a partner that could have been enormously important over the long term.

In an interview with Vladimir Putin, the speaker asked about Russia's actions in Ukraine. Putin explained that he felt threatened by NATO and feared the presence of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The speaker found Putin's response frustrating and believed he was filibustering. However, the speaker realized that Putin's detailed explanation was a window into his thinking about the region. Putin expressed his frustration with the West's rejection of Russia and his desire for a peace deal in Ukraine. The speaker also argued against the idea that Russia is an expansionist power and criticized US officials for demanding that Russia give up Crimea. The speaker emphasized the dangers of destabilizing Russia, a large country with a significant nuclear arsenal.

President Putin wants to see that as much as I do. So, again, mister president, I'd like to thank you very much, and we'll speak to you very soon and probably see you again very soon. Thank you very much, Vladimir. And next time in Moscow. Oh, that's an interesting one. I don't know. I'll get a little heat on that one, but I, I could see it possibly happening. Thank you very much, Vladimir. And thank you all. Thank

In 2021, President Putin sent a draft treaty to NATO, asking them to promise not to enlarge NATO and remove military infrastructure from allies that joined since 1997. NATO rejected this, leading to Putin's invasion of Ukraine. However, the opposite happened as NATO increased its presence in the eastern part of the Alliance. Finland has joined NATO and Sweden will soon become a member, benefiting the Nordic countries and NATO. Putin's attempt to prevent NATO enlargement has resulted in the exact opposite outcome.

If I were president, Putin would never have gone into Ukraine. I had a good relationship with him, which is a good thing. When asked who I trusted more, my intelligence people or Putin, it was a tough question. I didn't trust the intelligence people because they were bad people. They caused a fake Russia scam that harmed our country. But I was right, Putin would never have gone into Ukraine.

It's tough to make a deal with the hatred some people have for Putin, but the other side isn't exactly in love with him either. I want to see this situation resolved and am aligned with Europe on this. I could be tougher than anyone, but that won't get us a deal. We had a president who talked tough about Putin, but then Putin invaded Ukraine. Diplomacy is the path to peace, not chest-thumping. Putin occupied parts of Ukraine back in 2014, and nobody stopped him. We signed ceasefire and gas contracts with him, but he broke the ceasefire and didn't exchange prisoners. What kind of diplomacy is that? I'm talking about diplomacy that ends the destruction. It's disrespectful to come here and attack the administration trying to prevent the destruction of your country.

President Putin sent a draft treaty to NATO in 2021, asking for a promise not to expand NATO and to remove military infrastructure from countries that joined since 1997. NATO rejected this, so Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent further NATO expansion. However, the opposite happened. NATO now has a stronger presence in Eastern Europe, and Finland has joined the alliance with Sweden soon to follow. This is beneficial for the Nordic countries and NATO, showing that Putin's actions had the opposite effect.

Speaker 0: This thing over with. You see the hatred he's got for Putin. It's very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate. I'm aligned with the world. I wanna get the things set. If you want me to be tough? I could be tougher than any human being you've ever seen, but you're never gonna get a deal that way. Speaker 1: For four years in The United States Of America... we had a president who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin, and then Putin invaded Ukraine. The path to peace... is engaging in diplomacy. Speaker 2: He occupied it, our parts, big parts of Ukraine, parts of East and Crimea. So 2014. We signed ceasefire, gas contract, but after that, he broken the ceasefire, he killed our people, and he didn't exchange prisoners. What kind of diplomacy? Speaker 0: You should be thanking the president for trying to bring it into this conference. Speaker 2: We have problems. Speaker 0: You're gambling with World War three. You have the cards. With us, you have the cards. Without us you don't have any cards. I gave you the javelins to take out all those tanks. Obama gave you sheets. What if Russia breaks his fire?