reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Mike Wyatt, a retired FBI agent, expresses his concerns to Speaker 0 about the need for change within the organization. He emphasizes the importance of bravery and integrity and shares his worry about the current state of affairs. Speaker 0 acknowledges Mike's concerns and appreciates his service. Mike advises Speaker 0 to seek competent help and gather intelligence before making decisions. He also mentions the aggressive nature of certain organizations and warns Speaker 0 to be prepared. Speaker 0 assures Mike that they are ready for any challenges and expresses gratitude for his advice. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging the possibility of facing opposition if things don't work out.

Mike Wyatt, a former FBI agent, expresses his concerns about the current state of affairs to an unidentified speaker. He emphasizes the need for change and expresses his willingness to help. The speaker acknowledges Mike's concerns and appreciates his service. Mike advises the speaker to seek competent help and gather intelligence before making decisions. He also mentions his own lack of entrepreneurial skills. The speaker assures Mike that they understand his message and are prepared for any challenges they may face. Mike warns the speaker about potential threats from various organizations and offers his support. The conversation ends with gratitude and appreciation.

Speaker 0 is asked if he accepted bribes and if he would comment on the arrest of the former president.

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

Speaker 0 claims to have evidence that could lead to the imprisonment or impeachment of someone. They mention a grand jury and a special prosecutor. Speaker 1 suggests that Joe Biden's motive for going to Ukraine was not to fight corruption, but rather to assist the natural gas industry. They mention that Biden's son was involved with a major Ukrainian natural gas company.

Speaker 0: We have an important service today. Speaker 1: We, the wolves, are defending our Ukrainian land. I had a meeting with friends and partners in America, but the government there cannot recommend the Ukrainian infantry. Today, we are protecting our Ukrainian people with a new kind of army. As the president, I want to command them with pride.

Speaker 0 talks about soldiers involved in scandals. Speaker 1 shares a story about confronting soldiers who didn't know how to use weapons properly. She threatened to shoot if they didn't move, highlighting the dangers of untrained fighters in combat situations.

A senator forcefully denies allegations against him and accuses the government of manipulating the media. Another person agrees with the senator's claims but also criticizes him for not resigning. The senator accuses his colleagues of acting politically and defends his engagement with foreign governments. The person dismisses the senator's speech and suggests he should focus on his trial. They question why the senator is still being paid attention to despite severe accusations against him. The person also discusses the tendency for senators to support each other in times of trouble. They find it strange that the senator has not been expelled despite being accused of being a foreign agent for two Middle Eastern nations.

Speaker 1 claims that President Poroshenko fired them under pressure from Vice President Biden, who wanted to halt their investigation. They believe Biden acted in his own interests and treated Ukraine as his own backyard. Speaker 1 oversaw the Burisma case because Hunter Biden was involved, and they suspected illegal activities by the company. They agree with Devin Archer's statement that they were a threat to Burisma because they would have uncovered their corrupt activities. Speaker 1 accuses Burisma of illegal gas production and sales, and mentions a plea deal involving a $6 million bribe. They personally believe that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden received bribes. Speaker 1 denies any personal corruption and blames Biden for damaging America's reputation in Ukraine. They express concern for their safety and claim to have been poisoned twice.

Speaker 0 states that someone is killing people and something happened to a guy, which they dislike. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 about a report that a Russian commander said Putin was almost caught in a drone attack from Ukraine. Speaker 0 responds that they haven't heard about the drone attack report, but it could be a reason for the killing.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the presence and influence of the Taliban within government and international circles, and the U.S. approach to engagement. Speaker 1 suggests that while there may not be overt Taliban infiltration as a formal party, there are lobbyists, supporters, and Taliban in neckties and suits in Washington, pointing to the speech of the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan, Thomas West, as evidence of whitewashing the Taliban. Speaker 0 counters that the U.S. is in regular, productive dialogue with the Taliban, and believes the Taliban are sincere but frustrated. He notes that no sanctions have been passed against the Taliban since last August, that four Americans have returned, but several remain in Taliban custody. He also highlights that the U.S. has backed the shipment of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash into the country since August, and claims it is actually over $1,000,000,000. Speaker 0 states that the U.S. has cooperated with the Taliban on certain discrete issues, including closing roads and managing crowds to prevent terrorist disruption, and that he has had a series of engagements with senior Taliban leaders. When asked about returning to Afghanistan to meet with the Taliban, he says, “The sooner, the better,” noting that the Taliban want sanctions relief, development aid, and a big seat at the table. He mentions an announced plan to pump in another $308,000,000, and describes mechanisms that are getting hundreds of millions of dollars in cash directly into the banking system. The Taliban purportedly want to seat their permanent representative in New York. ISIS-K is described as a common enemy, with the Taliban maintaining a vigorous and robust effort against it. He asserts that, despite concerns, they are building productive relationships and an honest dialogue with Taliban members, while acknowledging the priority of countering ISIS-K. He references the Doha agreement breach by the Taliban in sheltering Ayman al-Zawahiri in downtown Kabul, which he characterizes as unacceptable and a major breach, and states that even after this event, the U.S. is prepared to engage pragmatically with the Taliban regarding terrorism concerns. Speaker 1 adds that the UN and World Bank are developing a humanitarian exchange facility to move more Afghans into the system, noting that many banknotes have circulated for over ten years and are not accepted by shops or the central bank. He mentions a private-sector arrangement in Europe facilitating the shipment of hundreds of millions in cash into private banks in Afghanistan, with money going to the Afghanistan International Bank (AIB), which allegedly lacks authority to convert dollars to Afghanis and to auction them, and then passes funds to the Taliban-controlled Central Bank of Afghanistan. He asks who is in charge of the Central Bank, identifying Nur Ahmad Ora as the head, described as sanctioned by the U.S. for financing IED attacks that killed American soldiers. He concludes that diplomacy with the Taliban is essential to achieve objectives and asks whether there are Taliban in elections, asserting that they hold official offices and are present, urging the listener to review their statements to determine if they are Taliban sympathizers or whitewashing the Taliban. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 remarking, “Man, that's scary.”

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

The exchange centers on who is responsible for approving an asylum claim linked to an Afghan individual who was part of the Afghanistan evacuation and who was involved in a deadly incident in Washington, D.C. The dialogue is combative and procedural as members press for accountability and a straight answer. - Speaker 0 references a National Guardsman’s death in an incident involving the same individual, calling it an unfortunate accident, while Speaker 1 insists it was a terrorist act and asserts the guard member was shot in the head. The interaction escalates as Speaker 0 seeks clarification about who approved the asylum application for this person. - Speaker 0 asks plainly: “Who approved the asylum claim?” Speaker 1 responds that the asylum application was thoroughly filled out by information gathered by the Biden administration and that the asylum process was put into place under rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 counters that, by implication, the Trump administration had changed the vetting process and the asylum had moved forward under those changes, prompting a dispute over attribution of responsibility. - Speaker 1 emphasizes that the evacuation of Afghanistan under Operation Allies Welcome was “thoroughly vetted by the Biden administration at that point in time” and insists that the individual’s asylum process followed the vetting and rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 pushes back, pressing for a yes-or-no determination of who approved the asylum. - Speaker 2 offers a different framing, stating that the individual was vetted to serve as a soldier in Afghanistan and that this vetting standard was used by the Biden administration “as a ruse to bring him here.” He asserts that had standard operating procedures for special immigrant visas been followed, “none of the Allies Welcome people would have come to America,” attributing responsibility to President Biden. He also invokes a point of order and references a murder “that took place in DC,” insisting the prior description as “unfortunate” was inappropriate. - The dialogue includes interruptions and procedural motions: Speaker 2 asserts the comment about a murder was not a valid point of order; a separate speaker notes that the incident being discussed was not merely an “unfortunate incident” but a murder. - Throughout, the participants accuse each other of misattributing the asylum approval to the wrong administration and of altering vetting processes, with repeated demands for a straightforward answer about who approved the asylum application and persistent insistence that the Biden administration’s vetting and rules were the basis for the asylum decision. The exchange ends with procedural interjections and the continuation of the dispute over responsibility for the asylum approval and the accompanying tragic incident.

Gary Melton (Gary) and Mitch have a lengthy, meandering exchange that centers on veterans’ histories, alleged government manipulation, personal trauma, and the pursuit of truth around high-profile political cases. The core thread is an effort to verify Mitch’s claims about his SF background and to explore broader claims about political interference, media narratives, and potential conspiracies. Key points and exchanges: - Identity, background, and verification: - Gary identifies himself as a former SF soldier seeking to verify Mitch’s SF history after seeing his Candace Owens interview. - Mitch provides his SF timeline: he was in group from February/March 1993 until November 1996; MOS 18 Charlie (medic). He mentions attending the 300F1 course and a severe on-duty accident at Guadalupe River, involving a 60-foot fall that caused multiple injuries (spine, feet, knee, lumbar, dislocations, torn labrum, etc.). - Mitch describes his treatment (brace, three-week leave, then recycled into the next class and internship at Brookhaven Army Medical Center Burn Ward). He mentions ODA +1 63166/ +1 63/ +1 66 and places himself on +183 and +185 in the old numbering system; later, he notes the transition to the newer numeric system circa 2002-2006. - Gary asks for Mitch’s DD214 to verify the story; Mitch agrees and offers to share it. He references being in “Lake Baja” and knowing Nate (Nate Chapman), whom he spoke with the day before. - Personal stakes, trauma, and family: - Mitch explains a long, difficult divorce and custody battle that spanned many years. He says he was a stay-at-home dad for his son, who is now 13, and describes persistent, aggressive accusations against him (PTSD, abuse, murder) by courts and media figures. - He recounts a prior incident involving a coworker or classmate, Jimmy Walker, and notes that Walker later claimed PTSD and discrimination in SF contexts. Mitch frames this as part of broader patterns of how SF status can be weaponized in custody and legal battles. - Mitch and Gary discuss how the SF environment can foster suspicion, paranoia, and intra-community politics (e.g., clashes with SF Brothers, admin actions, and the difficulty of maintaining contact with peers after leaving the teams). - Candace Owens, TPUSA, and broader conspiratorial discussions: - The callers discuss Candace Owens’ involvement, the TPUSA circle, and the believability of various claims. Mitch says he has wanted to vet the claims through Candace and Joe Kent, and he’s offered to supply documents to verify stories. He notes that Candace has reportedly pulled threads about various shooters and narratives and that this has caused friction with TPUSA. - Mitch argues that Candace might be exploited by political or foreign adversaries and that her narratives sometimes lack corroborating evidence, distracting from “the truth.” He insists on corroborating Mitch’s own story with documents (DD214, other records) before airing anything publicly. - Gary responds with skepticism about online personas but agrees to vet Mitch’s materials, emphasizing integrity and a desire to verify truth. Both acknowledge the risk of backend manipulation, bot attacks, and the use of media figures to push narratives. - Ballistics and the Charlie Kirk incident: - A substantial portion of the discussion turns to ballistics surrounding Tyler Robinson and the Charlie Kirk incident. Mitch (the ballistics expert) explains that many variables affect ballistic outcomes (ammo type, grain, bullet construction, handloads vs. factory ammo, barrel condition, yaw, stabilization). He argues that the 30-06 round’s behavior can be highly variable and that an “atypical” (non-normative) wound could occur for many reasons. - He compares Martin Luther King’s assassination (65-yard shot, 30-06, open casket) to Charlie Kirk’s wound, noting similarities in the trajectory and lack of an exit wound in some high-profile cases. He cites Chuck Ritter (Green Beret) who was shot multiple times with 7.62x54R and survived, and uses these examples to illustrate the complexity of interpreting ballistic evidence. - Mitch asserts that multiple plausible explanations exist for Kirk’s wounds and stresses that the exact ammunition type, projectile, and ballistic conditions are unknown at present. He emphasizes that investigators possess DNA and surveillance records (DNA on the firearm, trigger, cartridge, towel used by Tyler Robinson) and text messages; he notes that Mitch is not claiming to know the entire truth but wants to see corroborating evidence. - The two discuss the possibility of government involvement or manipulation, while acknowledging that ballistics alone cannot prove a broader conspiracy. They note the challenges of obtaining complete ballistic data before trials, and they express openness to future verification once more information becomes available (e.g., during trial proceedings). - Custody, investigations, and accountability: - Mitch recounts the broader pattern of SF members being targeted by legal systems when in contentious custody situations, with accusations and judgments influenced by SF status. He cites examples of coercion, character assassination, and the weaponization of families in court battles. - They discuss how the FBI and other agencies have handled high-profile cases, noting distrust in narratives presented by authorities and media. They acknowledge that public transparency is essential, even as prosecutions proceed. - Platform, vetting, and next steps: - The two plan to continue the vetting process: Mitch will provide DD214 and related documents to Gary, who promises to verify and not disclose sensitive information without Mitch’s consent. They discuss sending further documents via email or text (Gary’s Paramount Tactical contact). - Mitch expresses a desire to appear on Gary’s show and to connect with Nate (Nate Chapman) for collaborative vetting. Gary commits to facilitating, offering to act as an advocate if Mitch’s story is verified and to help set up communications with Nate and Candace as appropriate. - The conversation closes with both agreeing on the importance of truth, corroboration, and accountability. They acknowledge the risk and the emotional toll of revealing sensitive histories but emphasize their commitment to pursuing the truth and preventing misinformation or manipulation. Overall, the transcript captures a tense, exploratory exchange between two veterans and affiliates about verifying SF credentials, the personal toll of custody and legal battles, the influence of political narratives, and the complexities of ballistics and forensics in high-profile incidents. The participants stress verification through documents, corroboration of anecdotes, and cautious, integrity-driven engagement with media figures and audiences.

Mario (Speaker 0) and the Ukrainian ambassador (Speaker 1) discuss a mix of domestic corruption allegations, high-stakes diplomacy, and battlefield realities shaping Ukraine’s path toward ending the war. - Corruption scandal in Ukraine: The ambassador notes the scandal involved two government members and another former member, not Zelenskyy personally. She says lessons have been learned: war does not justify turning a blind eye to corruption, and the president has instructed the government to maintain full control of the situation and meet commitments and expectations. She emphasizes that the silver lining is the independent National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) digging out the scandal, describing NABU as the positive development in this context. Zelenskyy’s response included calls for retirement of involved officials and a push for court hearings and convictions; he reportedly found it personally complex to accept the retirement of his long-time ally, Andriy Yermak, the head of the president’s office, but acknowledges the need for accountability and signals that further exposures would trigger similar actions. The ambassador stresses that all institutions must follow procedures and that the public pressure around the issue is especially painful as winter approaches. - Putin, NATO, and Ukraine’s diplomatic posture: The conversation turns to recent developments. President Putin’s comment after a meeting with the U.S. delegation—“we’ll take Donbas by force or by surrender”—is viewed as a signaling to the American side about Russia’s stance, with the ambassador noting limited progress from the Ukrainian delegation’s talks (Rostov Mumarov and Vipkov) and anticipating a fuller readout. The ambassador says Macron’s discussions with China and China’s involvement in Moscow at the same time as U.S. delegations signals China’s continuing engagement with both Russia and Western actors; China previously supported Russia’s war with material and financial backing, and the ambassador argues China’s presence in Moscow is natural given the broader geopolitics and the need to monitor unpredictable developments. - China and the broader strategic context: The ambassador explains that while Ukraine receives limited direct messaging from China, Beijing maintains dialogue with Russia, the United States, and European allies; China’s alignment with Russia was highlighted at the start of the large-scale invasion, with Xi Jinping and Putin signaling a “thousand-year partnership.” She notes Russia’s shift in narrative after Putin’s Alaska meeting with the U.S. president and suggests Chinese watchdogs in Moscow are a natural counterpoint to Western diplomacy. - The two major sticking points in negotiations: The ambassador notes that Russia presented a 28-point plan (narrowed to 20 points) focused on Donbas, with broader implications including security guarantees and the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. She argues that it’s not productive to comment on each point in isolation since the Russian side uses a broader narrative that includes education of Ukrainian youth about anti-Western narratives. Ukraine is prepared to discuss a multi-layer solution: ceasefire, security guarantees, deterrence, and post-war political frameworks, while preserving sovereignty. - NATO and security guarantees: The ambassador contends security guarantees could be as strong as a NATO article-five framework, likening allied military actions to past operations conducted with partners. She distinguishes between the mere membership debate and practical security guarantees, asserting that Ukraine’s sovereignty remains paramount and that security guarantees are a meaningful path alongside potential NATO membership. - Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner’s roles: The ambassador describes a layered U.S. approach (Witkoff as special envoy with direct dialogue with Russia, Rubio coordinating with European allies and NATO officials, plus others like Daniel Driscoll and Candy Baker). She says these are not adversarial to diplomacy; rather, they form a structured process that could converge on a formal U.S.-Ukraine negotiation framework with eventual endorsement by the U.S. administration. - Pokrovsk and battlefield dynamics: The ambassador downplays the idea that Pokrovsk’s capture would decisively alter front-line dynamics, noting that the front experiences hundreds of engagements weekly. She acknowledges that Russia’s propaganda around Pokrovsk is designed to signal progress, but argues the reality is a broader battlefield picture with ongoing Ukrainian resilience. - Long-term strategic questions and sanctions: The ambassador reiterates bipartisan U.S. support for sanctions and designating Russia as a sponsor of terrorism, while acknowledging that enforceability is challenging and that Russia seeks time through delaying tactics. She emphasizes that Ukraine cannot rely on speed alone and must continue leveraging strikes on Russia’s energy and military infrastructure, including the so-called “shadow fleet” vessels, while avoiding direct strikes on civilians. - The Yermak corruption episode: The NABU-led investigation exposed the scandal; the president requested retirement for implicated officials and supported legal proceedings. The ambassador clarifies that there is no evidence implicating Zelenskyy himself, stressing the personal responsibility of the president and the need for transparent procedures moving forward, while maintaining that Yermak’s future role is subject to ongoing scrutiny. She notes media rumors (e.g., “golden toilets”) are not substantiated and emphasizes that Yermak has been sanctioned and that the government is pursuing accountability in a manner consistent with legal processes.

In this conversation, dated February 18, 2015, Poroshenko seems to admit that Shokin did nothing wrong but was forced to resign at Biden's request. The call starts with some technical difficulties, but they eventually connect. Poroshenko expresses his happiness and mentions positive and negative news. He then informs Biden that he met with the general who is facing corruption charges, but they don't have any information about him doing something wrong. Poroshenko specifically asked the general about this.

The speakers discuss various topics including LGBTQ+ issues in the military, finding LGBTQ+ friendly units, the Russian threat, corruption in the government, and the challenges faced by the Ukrainian army. They express disappointment in the current president and discuss the possibility of the speaker becoming a deputy in the future. The conversation also touches on the murder of an English soldier by his partner and the presence of foreign fighters in the Ukrainian army. The speakers express concerns about security risks and morale issues. The conversation ends with the offer for the speaker to become a deputy.

Speaker 0 questions Meneer Markushauer about why he could not become vice premier, implying it would have happened if it were up to Geert Wilders. The questions prompt whether he should ask Wilders about the matter and suggest that not everything passed the AIVD security check. The line of questioning then shifts to which foreign intelligence service Markushauer actually works for, asking him to declare whether he works for any foreign security service and specifically referencing the Turk. The questions continue to press: what foreign affiliation does he have, if any, and whether he has ties to a foreign intelligence agency. The speaker mentions the Stichting bij Leven en Welzijn and asks about firearms, suggesting this is a recurring topic in related groups. There is an insinuation that Denk might nominate a member of parliament who works for the Turkish security service, and the speaker urges Markushauer to answer plainly if there is nothing to hide. The conversation also notes that ANP (the news agency) wants an answer from Markushauer, signaling media interest in his affiliations and security clearance. The overall point is to probe Markushauer’s possible connections to foreign intelligence services, questions about his eligibility for high office based on security checks, and to obtain a clear admission or denial regarding any such affiliations, with an emphasis on transparency given political risk and media attention. The exchange presents a sequence of provocative questions intended to challenge Markushauer on loyalties, security vetting, and potential foreign influence, while underscoring public and media demand for clarification.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of working for a Russian oligarch and misusing money. Speaker 1 denies the accusations and criticizes Speaker 0's integrity. The conversation becomes heated as they argue about truth and lies. Speaker 1 questions the DOJ's treatment of him compared to Speaker 0. Speaker 0 mentions Speaker 1's conviction and reduced sentence. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0's credibility. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 accusing Speaker 0 of not being able to handle the truth.

Speaker 0: I don't think it's my mission. You told me that Allah would take care of it. So maybe it's not up to me to do it. Speaker 1: After this discussion, James Crowiti distances himself from Filtrer. Does he not want to go further? Is he scared? After eight months of daily contact with the informant, he abruptly cuts ties. Speaker 2: It's exceptional to have this kind of image. It's a way to prove the manipulation of the FBI and CIA secret services. The FBI had filled the place with cameras to catch the weakest. You see, this man wasn't interested in what the undercover agent from Pakistan was saying, he knew how to manipulate him. I just wanted to point out that, just like with terrorism cases in France, these people always come from drug trafficking and prison backgrounds. They recruit the most susceptible ones, the weakest. Speaker 1: The mission could end there, but that's not what will happen. For his operation, the FBI promised him 120,000 euros. After nine unsuccessful months, the informant plays his last card. He offers James Crowiti a sum of money that changes everything. Listen to their conversation revealed by phone taps. Speaker 0: Hello, do you remember me, my brother? Talk to me. Listen to me, listen to me. I left. I left everything, I'm gone, it's great. My brother, I can make you earn 250,000 dollars, but you don't want to. What do you want me to say? Okay, come see me, my brother. Speaker 2: Did he understand what was said in this documentary? It's simply incredible. We understand that this person, who has now been sentenced to 25 years in prison for terrorist conspiracy, was not convinced by the jihadist arguments of this undercover agent.

The speakers discuss a potential offer to buy Speaker 1 out of the governor's race. Speaker 1 is offended by the offer and expresses his commitment to running for the betterment of Arizona and the country. Speaker 0 suggests that the offer is a recognition of Speaker 1's power and offers a counter proposal. Speaker 1 refuses to be bought and emphasizes his dedication to the people and his refusal to let those who dislike the country dictate his actions. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 expressing hope for his case and his intention to fight against corruption.

Speaker 1 believes the justice system is being compromised for political gain. Speaker 0 thinks the situation reveals widespread corruption and distrust in institutions. Speaker 1 wonders why charges aren't dropped, but Speaker 0 has no answer. They agree on the need for change.

The speaker states that military matters should not be approached politically, but that Mark Milley has become a political animal. The speaker claims they would have fired Milley immediately if they had known he spoke with the Chinese in January 2020, assuring them that the U.S. military was under control. The speaker says Milley never informed them about these conversations. The speaker concludes that Milley, along with someone else, should have left after Afghanistan.

Speaker 0: Slavic force, too. Speaker 1: Officers, tonight will be the toughest night for me. Speaker 0: They took some today, no one took them, not even you, you were not in the Ukrainian army this morning, you are a local resident, I understand, Don is very professional, you are from Russia, can I ask you about the British? Where did they get it, comrade? They just sell British stuff in the store. Speaker 1: In the store. Speaker 0: The city now. Speaker 1: But they also have to switch to our side. They came here, and we offer them bread and everything so that our people are happy. Speaker 0: So, you think they will switch sides too? Speaker 1: They don't give weapons, they just come here. They can take their weapons and go back to their units. Those who want to stay can stay because what's the point of fighting? They won't be here anymore. Are you from Crimea? Speaker 0: Yes, and all your guys? Speaker 1: No, not all the guys from Crimea are here. There are only a few people here. The rest are in Petrovsky. 100 people, maybe. Speaker 0: Where did you come from in Crimea? You participated, of course, in the people's column surrendering. Speaker 2: There was no surrender. She will die there herself. Speaker 0: Military vehicles. Speaker 2: Initially, they said that we were going to the border to protect the integrity of the comparison. Speaker 3: We came against the troops, against the conduct of troops, to protect the territory. There are people here, no old ladies. If we hadn't gone to the exercises, they wouldn't have loaded the guns. Now they sit with loaded guns. What does it mean? Speaker 2: Probably, we are for it. Speaker 0: Of course. Speaker 2: Specifically, what is it for? No, we don't have it. Speaker 0: And you also came to stop, to...

The speaker discusses the dire situation in their unit, which is on the verge of disbandment with only 14 members remaining. They express uncertainty about the new command structure and criticize the perception of Russians as European, stating that Russians have a different culture and are Asian. They condemn the actions of Russian leaders and emphasize the need to win the information war against Russia. The speaker also mentions their suspension from their position due to political reasons and expresses frustration with corruption and the lack of focus on the war and the people of Ukraine. The conversation ends with the speaker being offered a potential role as a deputy in the upcoming elections.