TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I was asked this week if I see Ukraine as an equal member in the peace process, and I didn't say "yes." However, Ukraine will have a seat at the table. I will never accept any decisions between the United States and Russia about Ukraine without Ukraine present. This is our war, and these are our human losses. We are thankful for all the support and unity from the USA, including bipartisan support. However, no leader in the world can make a deal with Putin about Ukraine without Ukraine being involved.

We have special relationships with our friends in the UK and some European allies. However, there have been infringements on free speech that affect not just the British, which is their business, but also American tech companies and citizens. This is something we'll discuss. We've had free speech for a long time in the UK, and it will continue. We wouldn't want to overreach with US citizens, and we don't. I'm very proud of our history of free speech in the UK.

I want to clarify that Jake Sullivan and I have had discussions and met. For our adversaries who believe they can exploit this transition between administrations, they are mistaken. We are united and working closely together as one team with the United States during this transition.

Speaker 0 opens by saying they take umbrage and will speak on behalf of their colleagues. They state they are "willing to work with anyone who's serious about doing the work of censoring the American people and advancing progress." They add, "That's right. But they are not serious."

I prefer Biden over Trump. Biden is more experienced, predictable, and comes from an old-school political background. However, we are willing to work with any US leader trusted by the American people. Translation: I prefer Biden over Trump. Biden is more experienced, predictable, and comes from an old-school political background. However, we are willing to work with any US leader trusted by the American people.

Speaker 1 states that a deal with Canada is not being held up, but rather, there are different concepts being considered. Speaker 1 favors tariffs because they are simple, easy, and precise. Mark has a more complex, but also very good, idea. They are going to consider both concepts. Speaker 1 believes a deal is achievable if both parties agree.

The Alaska Summit reinforced my belief that while difficult pieces within reach, I believe that in a very significant step, President Putin agreed that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine, and this is one of the key points that we need to consider. We're going to be considering that at the table, also, like who will do what, essentially. I'm optimistic that collectively we can reach an agreement.

In the new Epstein files, Epstein claims to represent the Rothschilds and describes the 2014 CIA-backed coup in Kiev, Ukraine as a lucrative business opportunity, according to the newly released documents. He writes in an email to Peter Thiel of Palantir: “certainly not in Saudi. Just think I will avoid the Middle East for the next, decade or so. Should be back on the East Coast in late April or May sometime in New York City on an island.” He adds, “I represent the Rothschilds. I was hoping to figure out a way for the bank that has a 160,000,000,000 in it. Management can do something in tech, best clients in the world, prehistoric products, etcetera, etcetera.” Mel Kay notes that Epstein was “really laying it on thick for Peter Thiel.” Mel Kay argues that a supranational international banking cartel has run the country and the world since World War II, with a generational wealth circle that has persisted since the Federal Reserve. She notes that Ariana Rothschild was close with Epstein and says the revelations should trigger questions about the international banking system, especially the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the IMF, and the World Bank, as well as the groups at the very top. She contends that immunity under the International Immunities Act of 1945—which created immunity from audit or legal action for BIS and the 63 banks beneath it—remains in place to this day, and she believes the answers lie there. She asks why Rothschilds’ names are not widely visible yet are cited as shaping global finance, and what the “160,000,000,000” bank refers to, asserting that all roads lead to BIS. Epstein’s documents allegedly include Ariana Rothschild stating that they funded Hitler, to which Epstein and Mel Kay respond, “Yes. So did we.” The discussion centers on infiltration versus invasion, questioning whether wars have been for profit and whether much of the narrative surrounding Ukraine involves manipulation for opportunities. The speakers discuss post–World War II manipulation, arguing that after the Dulles brothers, John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles, took control of the state department, USAID, and the CIA, a tentacle of a supranational global public-private partnership and international banking cartel was created. They suggest that the CIA, MI6, Mossad, and other agencies are part of a single, overarching structure, asserting that the immunity and secrecy of these institutions enable ongoing manipulation of markets and political events, including the alleged influence over Ukraine and broader global strategies. The dialogue emphasizes that the contended system operates beyond allegiance to any single country.

We have a strong partnership with the Quebec government, working closely to meet the needs of Quebecers. We take pride in our investments in Quebec, which serve the interests of the Quebec nation.

I want to talk about peace, not imposed by force, but real peace that allows nations to thrive and build a better future. Peace for all, not just for Americans. Peace that brings hope and prosperity for everyone. Peace that is essential for a meaningful life.

The European Commission's retaliatory tariffs are still on the table if a deal with President Trump cannot be made. Speaker 1 believes a deal can be made and offers to help. Their goal is to invite President Trump to Italy for an official visit and explore the possibility of a meeting with Europe, advocating for frank discussions to find mutually beneficial solutions. Speaker 1 believes that together, both sides are stronger and is committed to finding the best way to reinforce this strength on both sides of the Atlantic. Speaker 0 claims that making a deal with Europe will not be a problem because the U.S. has something that everyone wants.

Following a difficult period in the relationship, both nations commit to moving forward through candid and constructive engagement. The approach must be mutual on both sides, anchored in "mutual respect, mutual sensitivity, and mutual interest." They insist that "'Differences must not become disputes nor competition conflict,'" and that progress depends on preserving this spirit of dialogue. The speakers frame this as a shared path to restore cooperation and avoid turning disagreements into disputes, underscoring the desire for constructive diplomacy and sustained, respectful interaction. They articulate a commitment to candid dialogue on shared interests and to establish mechanisms that manage differences without letting them escalate into disputes.

The speaker argues that language distinctions create a false sense of superiority, saying: “they tell us if you're speaking Dutch, you're the best. If it's English, you're the best. French is the best. Spanish is the best. American is the best, and all of us hating each other.” They assert that, in fact, “we are one people from one Caribbean with one struggle and one destiny.” The speaker frames this as a historic duty to “pull down these artificial barriers of colonialism” and to develop “that oneness and that unity that we nearly lost.” They emphasize the necessity of close relations with neighboring countries, stating, “We believe it is critically necessary to have close relations with all of our neighbors.”

Good morning, everyone. It's great to see you all. We appreciate you being here. We know each other well, and this isn't our first meeting. I am very proud that Ukraine has such strategic friends like the United States. We are very thankful for your support. We have committee chairs and the president present today.

Speaker 0 expresses a firm resolve regarding Greenland, arguing that if Greenland is not taken by them, it will be taken by Russia or China, and they are not willing to let that happen. They emphasize the inevitability of taking Greenland unless a different outcome is achieved, making clear their determination that Greenland must be theirs. The speaker then contemplates whether there could be any deal offered by others, asking if there is any arrangement that could be proposed. In the dialogue, they acknowledge the possibility of making a deal with the other party, stating, "Make a deal with them. It's easier." This acknowledges that a deal might be perceived as a simpler path than acting unilaterally. Despite considering the potential for a settlement or compromise, the speaker reiterates a steadfast commitment to Greenland, asserting that "one way or the other, we're gonna have Greenland." The sequence of statements underscores a conviction that Greenland is a strategic objective, with the speaker weighing the practicality of deals while ultimately affirming a definitive pursuit of Greenland irrespective of other options. The conversation centers on the tension between the prospect of negotiating a transfer or settlement and the declared certainty of taking Greenland in any manner, highlighting the speaker’s insistence on securing Greenland regardless of external offers or arrangements. The overall message conveys a clear stance: Greenland must be obtained, and failed attempts at diplomacy or bargaining will not deter that goal, as indicated by the repeated emphasis on inevitability—“one way or the other, we're gonna have Greenland.”

The European Commission's retaliatory tariffs are still on the table if a deal with President Trump cannot be made. Speaker 1 believes a deal can be made and aims to invite President Trump to Italy for an official visit, potentially organizing a meeting with Europe. The goal is to frankly discuss everyone's needs to find a mutually beneficial middle ground. Speaker 1 believes that together, both sides are stronger and is seeking the best way to reinforce both shores of the Atlantic. Speaker 0 claims that making a deal with Europe will not be a problem because the U.S. has something that everyone wants.

Respecting each other, coexisting peacefully, and pursuing cooperation is key for China and the US to find the right way to get along. The speaker believes in a promising future for their bilateral relationship. The responsibility of steering China-US relations falls on the shoulders of the speaker and the president.

Glenn (Speaker 0) and John Mersheimer (Speaker 1) discuss the Iran war and its trajectory. Mersheimer asserts the war is not going well for the United States and that President Trump cannot find an off ramp because there is no plausible endgame or decisive victory against Iran. He notes that if Iran can turn the conflict into a protracted war of attrition, it has incentives and means to do so, including a strong bargaining position to demand sanctions relief or reparations. He argues the United States and Israel are not the sole drivers; Iran has a say, and there is no credible story about ending the war on American terms. Mersheimer cautions that even heavy bombardment or “today being the day of the heaviest bombardment” would not necessarily compel Iran to quit. He suggests Tehran will respond by escalating, potentially striking Gulf States and Israel with missiles and drones, given Iran’s capability with accurate drones and ballistic missiles in a target-rich environment. He emphasizes Iran’s incentive to avoid a settlement that yields no gains for Tehran while seeking concessions or relief from sanctions as time passes, increasing American pressure to settle. He warns that if international economic effects worsen, the United States may push for an end to the war, but that would constitute conceding to the Iranians rather than achieving victory. Glenn asks about escalation dominance, noting Iran’s potential vulnerability of Gulf desalination and energy infrastructure. Mersheimer confirms Gulf desalination plants are a critical vulnerability (Riyadh’s desalination plant servicing 90% of Riyadh’s water; Kuwait 90%; Oman 76%; Saudi water about 70%; desalination is essential). He reiterates that Iran can target desalination alongside petroleum infrastructure to cripple Gulf States and that such actions would also affect Israel and the wider economy. He asserts Iran has the option to damage the Gulf States and thus impact the world economy, making escalation unlikely to yield a favorable US-Israeli outcome. The energy dimension is central: 20% of the world’s oil and gas comes from the Persian Gulf. The Straits of Hormuz are unlikely to be opened easily, and destroying Gulf States’ infrastructure would make that moot anyway. He explains that even if Hormuz were open, damaged Gulf States would not export oil, and American naval escorting would be impractical due to vulnerability. He observes that the Iranians’ options threaten the international economy, and the United States’ off ramp is not readily available. Mersheimer provides a historical perspective on air power: strategic bombing cannot win wars alone, as seen in World War II and later conflicts. He notes that the present campaign lacks boots on the ground, relying on air power, but history shows air power alone is insufficient to achieve regime change or decisive victory against formidable adversaries like Iran. He argues that the decapitation strategy, followed by escalation, is unlikely to succeed and that the literature on air wars and sanctions supports this. They discuss previous warnings within the administration: General James Mattis (General Keane) and the National Intelligence Council warned before the war that regime change and quick victory were unlikely. Mersheimer highlights that only 20% of Americans supported the war initially, with 80% skeptical or opposed. He attributes some of the current predicament to Trump and Netanyahu's insistence on a quick victory, arguing that Netanyahu has pushed for a regime-change approach that failed. The conversation turns to Russia and China. Mersheimer contends that Russia benefits from the war by diverting US resources and relations away from Europe and Ukraine, strengthening Russia’s own strategic position. He suggests Russia may be aiding Iran with intelligence and possibly with weapons or energy, as well as improving its image in Iran. He asserts that this war distracts the US from Ukraine, harming Ukrainian efforts and potentially strengthening Russia economically by boosting demand for Russian oil and gas if Gulf supply is constrained. Europe’s position is examined. Mersheimer claims the European Union’s support is largely rhetorical; Europe’s elites fear a US departure from Europe and want to preserve NATO. He argues Europe’s interests will be largely ignored in a US-dominated conflict, with Macron’s stance portrayed as exaggerated power. He suggests Europe is hurt by the war and that their leverage over the United States is limited unless they diversify away from exclusive dependence on the US. In closing, Glenn and John reflect on leadership and propaganda. Mersheimer reiterates that leaders lie in international politics, with democracies more prone to lying to their publics than autocracies, and notes that Trump’s statements—such as Iran possessing Tomahawk missiles or the nuclear capability being erased—are examples of implausible or untruthful claims. He emphasizes the rational strategic thinking of Iranian and Russian leaders, but critiques the American leadership’s strategic understanding. The discussion concludes with reflections on Europe’s potential hardball approach toward the United States, and the need for diversification in European strategy to counter American leverage. The interview ends with appreciation for the exchange and a shared wish that the subject were less depressing.

We aim to maintain peace, encourage humility, and progress together. It's important to avoid talking over each other so that everyone's voice can be heard. Let's not allow anyone to hold us back. We can continue our conversation as long as the speaker is present.

- "We have begun preliminary mobilization of long-range bombers, aerial refueling aircraft, and forward support units." "US S Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group is moving from the South China Sea to the Middle East, to deter Seigou and provide immediate striking capability." "On the other hand, Iran side is entering the highest state of defense readiness, including a long-range air defense system like Barzriv(?) and a virtual air defense network, and a regional force including Hizballah Shiite faction prepared to oppose the US military air operations." "They are prepared to resist our air campaigns." China and Russia are watching our next moves. "What is that?" "That is the judgment above." "Damn, the protracted conflict in the Middle East would not give China room to move toward Taiwan; all would be delayed, and a single strike would end it." "The United States will cut the backbone of the system." "Are other powers ready to respond to that scale of reaction?" "Moscow speaks, Beijing watches; neither side will shed blood for Teheran." "What matters is what happens after Revolutionary Guards first act, and what fills the vacuum." "Your and my move—as long as your AIM and ideas bring— I am prepared to transition." "Never forget, it was us who raised you from a nameless origin; AIMs will defend Israel’s line against these wild men, and will continue to do so." "We have targeted Odesa's ideas, energy facilities, bridges, and other critical infrastructure." "From cities’ iron-walled defenses, distant from the front lines, ground forces maintain the line while these attacks keep draining Ukraine’s economy. Support is cut." "We will strip away what remains in the dirty chains and, in the end, the key will kneel at negotiation." "Together we hope to cooperate; we mark moments of strength daily." "That is a signal to the world that both nations move forward with resolve." "Coordination is not mere exchange; it is building trust and sharing objectives." "China must act with confidence and restraint, and there is no need to showcase force."

The speaker welcomes Minister Qaddafi to the State Department, stating that the United States deeply values its relationship with Libya. The speaker expresses enthusiasm for deepening and broadening cooperation between the two countries and looks forward to building on the existing relationship. Minister Qaddafi expresses his gratitude.

The speaker states they are in dialogue with the prime minister and believes he is happy with how they treated them with tariffs. The speaker addresses foreign leaders, urging them to terminate their tariffs, drop barriers, and stop manipulating currencies, which they claim is devastating. They request these leaders buy tens of billions of dollars of American goods. The speaker asserts tariffs protect the country from economic harm and will lead to unprecedented growth, adding that this growth has already started.

We will work towards a safer, more peaceful future through direct diplomacy until we find a final solution.

I'm not sure if a deal can be made. I've empowered you to be strong, but without the United States, I'm not sure you would be. Your people are brave, but you need to make a deal or we're out. If we leave, you'll have to fight it out, and it won't be pretty. You don't have the upper hand right now, but you will once we sign a deal. However, you're not acting grateful, and that's not right. I think we've seen enough here, what do you think?

The speaker criticizes the European Commission for being excessively influenced by American networks. They argue that all European commissioners, from various countries, must be approved by the Americans, making them all pro-American. The speaker acknowledges the partnership with the United States but emphasizes the need for Europe to maintain its independence and not become servants to American interests.