reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that international security is broader than military-political stability and includes global economic stability, poverty reduction, economic security, and civilizational dialogue. He emphasizes the principle that security of each is security of all, recalling Franklin Roosevelt’s idea that “wherever peace is violated, peace everywhere is threatened.” He asserts that two decades ago the world was split ideologically and economically, with security provided by the large strategic potential of two superpowers, and that global confrontation has moved to the periphery of international relations, leaving acute economic and social issues unresolved. He criticizes the unipolar world as not achievable or acceptable, defining it as one center of power and one center of decision-making, a model he says is not democracy and ultimately destructive for both the ruled and the ruler. He notes that unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved problems and have caused new tragedies and tens of thousands of civilian deaths. He points to the increasing and unchecked use of force in international affairs, the neglect of core principles of international law, and the tendency to resolve issues on the basis of political expediency. The speaker highlights new threats such as weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, arguing for a balanced approach that considers the interests of all international actors. He notes the rapid changes in the international landscape, including the rise of China and India, whose combined GDP (at PPP) surpasses the US, and BRICS collectively surpassing the EU, predicting that economic power will increasingly translate into political influence and strengthen multipolarity. He calls for multilateral diplomacy, openness, transparency, and predictability, with force used only as an exceptional measure and in accordance with the UN Charter, not as a substitute for collective security institutions such as the UN, NATO, or the EU. The speaker defends adherence to international treaties on nonproliferation and disarmament, recalling Russia’s agreement with the US to cut strategic nuclear weapons to 1700–2200 deployable warheads by December 31, 2012, and emphasizes Russia’s commitment to the NPT and multilateral controls on missile technologies. He critiques the proliferation of missile systems in various countries and the existence of new high-tech weapons, including space-based systems, warning that militarization of space could have consequences comparable to the nuclear era. He announces a Russian proposal for a Space Weapons Prevention Treaty and discusses concerns about missile defense deployments in Europe, arguing they provoke a new arms race and distrust. Regarding conventional forces in Europe, he criticizes the Adapted CFE Treaty for insufficient ratification and notes NATO’s expansion near Russian borders, arguing that such expansion reduces mutual trust. He recalls a 1990 NATO secretary-general statement about not placing troops beyond Germany’s borders and stresses that Russia seeks an independent foreign policy with responsible partners to build a fair and democratic world order for all. He also discusses energy cooperation, arguing that energy prices should be market-driven and that foreign capital participates significantly in Russian oil production, with investments in Russia exceeding Russian investments abroad by about 15:1. He mentions Russia’s ongoing WTO accession and criticizes double standards in poverty alleviation, noting how aid and subsidies can perpetuate economic underdevelopment and fuel radicalism and conflict. Finally, he defends the OSCE as a body intended to address security in a holistic way but contends it has been used to serve external interests and to finance NGOs that may interfere in internal affairs. He calls for the OSCE to respect sovereignty and for cooperation based on mutual trust. He closes by reaffirming Russia’s longstanding tradition of independent external policy and expresses a desire to work with responsible, independent partners to build a just, democratic world order that ensures security and prosperity for all.

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

George Soros had begun to make a name for himself as a conscience-free economic hitman as early as World War II, collaborating with Nazis, which he described as “the best time of my life.” A subsequent exchange recalls that he went out with a protector who swore he was his adopted godson, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews. When asked if it was difficult, the respondent says, “Not at all. No problem,” and adds that even if he weren’t there, somebody else would be taking it away anyway, suggesting a market-driven rationale for the actions. The narrative then traces a mentorship under the Fabian Society’s Karl Popper at the Langdon School of Economics, where Soros acquired his idea of open societies as a cover for world government control. It also notes an Edmund de Rothschild–connected influence: George Karlweiss, chairman of the Rothschild Swiss-based bank Privy, endowed Soros with the financial resources to launch a new type of organization called a hedge fund. From that moment, the young speculator began to amass a fortune as a financial mercenary, released during the new age of deregulation and deployed to destroy the economies of any nation resisting a banker’s dictatorship through currency speculation. Using his ill-begotten resources, Soros was said to set up a network of private organizations to advance democracy-building around the world. In 1979, Soros’s Open Society Foundations came online and began to interface closely with the National Endowment for Democracy, which soon set up two offices in China in the 1980s. David Ignatius, the former head of the NED, admitted in 1991 that the organization was little more than a front for the CIA, noting that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly twenty five years ago by the CIA.” Throughout the 1980s, a new world order was staged, described by some as the end of history. In Hungary, Soros’ Open Society Foundations infused restructuring, privatization, and other market-driven reforms in 1988, leading to the emergence of a new oligarchical class beholden to Wall Street and contributing to election manipulation that ousted Ferdinand Marcos’s national leadership and installed Corazon Aquino in an early color revolution called the People Power Revolution. Russia warmly embraced Soros and the NED under Mikhail Gorbachev, who ensured the stage would be set for Russia’s submission to a new age of destruction called Perestroika. In the 1990s, the program was titled Operation Hammer by the Trilateral Commission’s George Bush Sr., a program of looting of former state enterprises under the watch of the IMF, taking the name “shock therapy.”

There is no society anymore. Instead, a transnational security elite is using taxpayer money to divide the world. To counter this, we shouldn't just petition, but rather take control. We need to create our own networks of strength and mutual value to challenge the warmongers in our country and others. They have formed an alliance to funnel money from the United States, NATO countries, Australia, and channel it through Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia.

I funded dissident activities and civil society groups in Eastern Europe and Poland during the revolutions of 1989. Similarly, I established a foundation in Ukraine before its independence from Russia, and it has been active ever since, playing a significant role in current events. We've also engaged in discussions with Ukrainian leadership on revitalizing agriculture and enhancing energy efficiency through new company partnerships. George Soros was present, and we collaborated on these initiatives.

George Soros's Open Society Foundations have been revealed to be actively trying to influence political processes in Europe and Russia through funding local advocacy groups, social media projects, and journalists. For example, they provided over $130,000 to EU Observer, which used professional news reporting to promote open society values during the European elections. Additionally, leaked documents show the organization's half a million dollar effort to find evidence of Russia's alleged influence in European politics, although they acknowledge the challenges of accusing Russia. Some critics argue that Soros aims to disrupt Europe and promote open borders, referring to his version of democracy as "Sorosocracy."

My initial efforts began in South Africa, followed by Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed. I focused on Hungary in 1984, Poland in 1987, and China in the same year, effectively building what I call the Soros Empire to replace the Soviet Empire. Currently, I'm most involved in Russia, which mirrors the situation during the Soviet Union's collapse. However, the context has changed; back then, the Soviet Union was declining while the European Union was thriving. Now, we see a resurgent Russia and a disintegrating European Union, which is a concerning development.

The speaker outlines a project to map US State Department involvement with George Soros, The Open Society Foundations, and related entities across many countries, noting that the WikiLeaks cables (Kissinger, Carter, and Cablegate) cover 1973–2010 but omit the 1980s and 1990s. The goal is to create a comprehensive picture of how US policy has aligned with “George Soros, The Open Society Foundation, The Open Society Institute, every open society spandrel in every country.” The speaker highlights that Strobe Talbott in 1995 said US foreign policy had to be synchronized with allied governments and with Soros, describing it as “like working with a friendly, allied, independent entity, if not a government,” and stating that Soros then became “the number one political downer.” The narrative begins with precedents before the Open Society Foundation’s creation in 1979. In 1973–1975, Soros references appear in cables before the Open Society Foundation started. The speaker then focuses on a troubling example from 1976 in Gabon, via a Kissinger cable titled Visit by Brown and Root Executives to Gabon. Brown and Root, later Halliburton, is connected to George Soros through Brown and Root’s executives and projects. The CIA’s reaction to a Ramparts article about Brown and Root is discussed, showing Herman Brown (founder of Brown and Root) and his son George Rufus Brown as covert associates with the CIA under project LP coin, with Herman Brown serving as president and director of Brown and Root and trustee of the Brown Foundation. The claim is that both Herman Brown and his son had covert security clearances and were involved with CIA projects from 1965–1967, including potential service on the board of a CIA creation in Thailand/Laos. Brown and Root is described as one of Soros’s top five holdings in the mid-2000s, implying a CIA-connected origin for the company. A note is given that in Gabon, Soros Associates (founded by Paul Soros, George Soros’s older brother) is involved in port projects. Paul Soros’s shipping and engineering influence is illustrated by a Washington Post obituary, and the speaker mentions a related anecdote from Bill Burns’s autobiography The Back Channel about embassy construction projects in Russia being prebugged, and the implication that Western engineering firms with ties to intelligence could have facilitated spying. Before Open Society Foundations existed, in June 1975 Bandar Abbas Port Project in Iran involved three senior Dravo Corporation executives, plus International Systems, Van Houten Associates, and Soros Associates. The embassy was instructed to assist American bidders to ensure Soros Associates’ bid, noting Soros Associates’ engineering focus and the aim to eliminate competing bids. The government of Iran’s consideration of the American group and the influence of Soros’s bid on Iran’s judgment are documented. In Gabon, 1975–1976, financing arrangements are described: a financing package for Soros’s contract including a down payment by the Gabonese governor, an Export-Import Bank direct loan, and a First National City Bank loan, with the U.S. embassy consulting to emphasize more favorable terms and to potentially extend financing into a larger package. The accounts emphasize multiple U.S. government roles: Commerce Department, State Department, Export-Import Bank, and embassies, colluding to support Soros financing and projects, with the claim that this occurred years before the Open Society Foundations were created and began collaborating with U.S. agencies. The speaker suggests a long-standing family involvement, with older brother Paul Soros already coordinating with the State Department to secure deals for Soros Associates before 1979. The Mongolia story is promised as a later highlight. The compilation is framed as a five-decade pattern of government support for Soros-related deals, starting in 1973 and continuing through the Cablegate era.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, George Soros stepped in to fill the power vacuum in Hungary, Poland, and China in the late 1980s. This marked the rise of what some call the Soros Empire, taking over where the Soviet Empire left off. How successful do you think Soros has been in his imperial ambitions?

George Soros discusses his work building civil society in the former Soviet Union, starting with the establishment of a foundation in Ukraine in 1990, two years before its independence, as an offshoot of the foundation in Russia, which began in 1987. He notes the foundation provided scholarships and supported civil society. He expresses that the maturity of civil society in Ukraine 25 years later is largely due to the foundation's work. The interviewer notes that many leaders in the new Ukrainian government have been touched by the Open Society, either personally receiving scholarships or having family members who did. Soros says it is quite an experience to see the impact of the foundation over 25 years, as former students have become leaders. The interviewer then asks Soros to explain Putin's influence in Europe, given that some European leaders view Putin as a role model. Soros responds that he can take a historical perspective, as he was very involved in the collapse of the Soviet system, which he considers his debut as a political philanthropist.

I see NGOs as a hack, and George Soros was a master at it. He understood how to use a relatively small amount of money to establish a nonprofit, and then lobby politicians to funnel large sums of money into it. For example, a $10 million donation could be leveraged into a billion-dollar NGO. These NGOs, or nongovernmental organizations, often have appealing names, but they can essentially be graft machines. They receive grants with minimal requirements, and the government often assumes they're doing good work, even when they might not be. Many within the government are aware of this dynamic, but the funding continues.

In 1993, George Soros stated that the UN had failed, leaving NATO as the only collective security institution not yet tried, with the potential to be the basis of a new world order. He argued NATO's original mission was obsolete, and a security vacuum presented a new threat within regions, requiring NATO to project its power and influence, defining its mission in terms of open and closed societies, democracy versus autocracy, and countering nationalism. Soros advocated for NATO to engage in organized political warfare, building democratic states and open societies, embedding them in a structure that precludes certain behaviors, with military intervention as a last resort. He proposed a broader alliance beyond military matters, including economic assistance tied to internal political developments, requiring NATO to get involved in the internal politics of every country. Soros suggested a new organization, possibly a post-Partnership of Peace, emphasizing political and economic aspects, funded by reallocating the NATO budget. He also proposed Japan should join NATO and combining manpower from Eastern Europe with NATO's technical capabilities to enhance military potential. He advocated for marrying rule of law programs to economic aid, with foreign aid incentivizing a legal framework for private sector participation.

The conversation centers on the idea that Europe’s leadership has deteriorated and that powerful voices from the past warned this would happen. Colin Powell, according to Speaker 1, told Speaker 0 in 1989 that Europe would end up with “horrible leaders,” and that those who replace them would be people “who have no conscience, people who have no sense of reality, people who have not been seasoned by warfare… who think they control their lives but don't.” Powell’s view, developed from his experience as a military and strategic analyst, was that once the pressure of the Cold War abated, there would be little rationale for NATO, and Europe would drift without a coherent security structure. Speaker 1 elaborates that Powell’s instincts led him to anticipate a dissolution of the postwar security order. Powell argued that NATO’s justification would erode, and a political debacle would accompany the military one as Europe’s leaders lacked direct experience of war. He advised creating a European security identity (ESI) consisting of a 3,000-person brigade, with its own equipment, training, and industrial base, divorced from NATO. The idea was that, over time (perhaps a 20–25 year period), the ESI could grow into a division, then a corps, with its own air power and arms industry, eventually allowing NATO to fade away while Europe managed its own security. Speaker 1 notes that Powell’s position was controversial with U.S. defense and defense contractors, who viewed him as dangerous for proposing such an independent European security framework. The discussion parallels George Kennan’s 1987 warning that if the Soviet Union collapsed, American society would face a shock because so much of its domestic and alliance structures depended on the external threat. The speakers discuss Clinton-era shifts, including Bill Perry’s attempts to revive cooperation with Russia, and the way Clinton’s policies altered the trajectory away from Powell’s envisioned framework. They mention a shift away from a fixed European security reliance on a NATO-centric model toward broader strategic engagement, but also criticize the departure from a legally grounded approach to world affairs. The conversation then turns to current tensions, including Europe’s involvement in Ukraine. The participants reflect on Powell’s broader aim of integrating security arrangements with law, noting that international law should guide actions, even if law alone cannot ensure outcomes. They discuss the possibility that the war in Ukraine could reflect the consequences of earlier decisions to preserve U.S. footprints in Europe and the Cold War security architecture, which in their view helped maintain stability but also embedded Europe within a security framework that relied on American leadership. The dialogue references the Balkans as an example of policy divergence: Powell warned that stabilizing the Balkans would require extensive forces, but President Bush was reluctant. Clinton eventually conducted a prolonged bombing campaign against Serbia, altering the dynamic with Russia and highlighting the tensions between ambitious security vision and political practicality. The speakers emphasize the importance of law and national security structures, the desire to rethink post–Cold War decisions, and the ongoing question of how Europe should secure its own stability while balancing relations with Russia and the United States.

The discussion opens with breaking news: President Trump announced that thousands of US forces stationed in Germany would be removed, prompting claims that NATO may have taken its last breath. In the same hours, Iran struck multiple targets across the Middle East, including oil infrastructure in the United Arab Emirates, with oil facilities in the UAE reportedly on fire. Iran also claimed US Navy ships were hit by multiple missiles, while CENTCOM denied the strikes occurred, though Iran maintained they did. British coverage through state media reported that a US warship turned back from the Strait of Hormuz and that two missiles hit a US warship near Jask Island after warnings were ignored; this is contested, with independent verification not established at that moment. Colonel Daniel Davis, host of The Deep Dive with Dan Davis, joins to discuss NATO, the US force presence in Africa, and the Hormuz situation. The NATO piece centers on the move to pull thousands of troops out of Germany, described as an affront to NATO structure and raising questions about whether NATO is effectively finished. Davis notes it followed French Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s remarks that the United States has no strategy, which Trump reacted to with threats to withdraw troops. He explains that pulling out could take six to twelve months due to the logistics of moving equipment and posts, and suggests the Pentagon might prefer redirecting troops eastward to Romania or Poland rather than home to the US, though Davis doubts that would happen. He argues the purpose would be to have Europe bear more responsibility for its own security, but stresses that a coherent plan with allied coordination would be required. He says NATO’s relevance began to fade after the Soviet Union’s disbandment in 1992, with the alliance failing to improve US national security and becoming a drain, and he predicts NATO may be replaced by something else, though the future shape remains unknown. He criticizes a knee-jerk, emotionally driven approach to the issue. Speaker 3 (Natalie) references Trump’s “Project Freedom,” criticized as potentially Orwellian in branding, and notes Trump’s shift from offering to escort ships through Hormuz to presenting a humanitarian-guiding service. Davis counters that CENTCOM initially stated it would not escort ships due to lacking the capacity, yet later posts suggested some ships and resources were out in support of the operation, and that two American-flagged vessels were claimed to have moved through the Strait of Hormuz (though Iran disputed this). The administration’s mixed messaging, the possibility of staging or false-flag actions, and the reality that 2,000 ships are clustered in the Persian Gulf are highlighted. There is concern that Iran might be provoked into attacking ships to justify further military responses, potentially escalating tensions and oil disruptions. The conversation then returns to the broader implications: the oil infrastructure attacks, the uncertain status of vessel movements through the Strait of Hormuz, and the risk that escalation could push global oil prices higher, with projections of spikes to $150–$175 per barrel or higher if the conflict intensifies. Davis notes that the situation could trigger broader economic pain, including energy lockdowns and disruptions in fertilizer, farming, and related supply chains, unless a diplomatic solution is found, which he implies is preferable to more military action. Finally, the discussion turns to Operation African Lion, where two US soldiers are missing and a search-and-rescue operation is underway. Davis questions the purpose and benefit of continued US involvement in Africa, arguing that similar interventions have occurred for years without clear American national interest or clear outcomes, citing Somalia as an ongoing series of airstrikes (61 in 2026 so far) without a lasting solution. He emphasizes that bombing and troop deployments have not solved the fundamental conditions and warns that continued military engagement risks reputational damage and ongoing costs. The segment closes with Davis reiterating concerns about perpetual intervention and the need for reconsidering strategic aims. The broadcast ends with the hosts inviting viewers to subscribe and share the program.

We have been given a blessing and our country needs us. George Soros is fearless and willing to step up when it counts. He is introduced by Hillary, who he admires greatly. Soros has seen her deliver a speech about open society and visit central Asia where he has foundations. He feels the need to become engaged in the electoral process in this country for the first time. In his foundations, he has provided financial support for people who believe in the idea of an open society.

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.

I discovered a way to work the system, like George Soros. He realized you could establish an NGO with relatively little money. You then lobby politicians to allocate significant funds to that organization. For instance, a $10 million donation could be used to establish a nonprofit and turn it into a billion-dollar NGO. These organizations often have appealing names, such as the Institute for Peace, yet they're essentially graft machines. There are hardly any requirements associated with the funds they receive. The government largely assumes they're doing good work, although many officials are aware that this isn't the case; it's simply a massive system of graft.

Interviewer notes Soros funded dissident activities during the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe. Soros responds that he 'set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of, Russia' and that 'the foundation has been, functioning ever since, and it played an important part in events now.' Asked whether Ukraine will assert independence from Russia and orient toward the West (not specifically NATO), he implies challenges ahead, stating 'No. Putin will try to destabilize, Ukraine.' He reiterates the foundation's ongoing role, saying 'the foundation has been, functioning ever since, and it played an important part in events now.' The discussion ties Soros's past funding of dissident activities to his ongoing Ukrainian foundation's role.

George Soros stated he set up a foundation in Ukraine before it became independent from Russia. According to Soros, the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in current events. Soros believes Putin will try to destabilize Ukraine.

"We were able to prove how Soros, through this structured organization, spent two it was 2,500,000,000.0, $2,500,000,000 on our twenty twenty election." "Soros desires a completely globalized world." "Ukraine is a money laundering operation Yes. For, frankly, the central intelligence agency and elements of the government." "It is a weapons trafficking." "It is human trafficking." "It is a drug smuggling arena, and I mean big time because keep in mind, 2014 until we left Afghanistan, Afghanistan was the single largest producer of heroin in the world." "Arabella Advisors created a structure of NGOs, non governmental organizations, and for profit organizations, and they built it so seamless, and they used organizations like USAID." "They used departments like the Department of State underneath the Obama administration and clearly underneath the Biden administration." "Victoria Nuland coming out and basically saying that we had taken over the country, not just their banks and their judiciary and all of that, but that we were training soldiers. This is in 2015." "In the last three years alone, last three years, there's been 1,700,000 soldiers killed." "February 2014 was when Russia attacked into the eastern part of Ukraine." "This is about globalism and these people that want to globalize the world." "A seven or maybe a nine ship armada, a naval armada task force." "Maduro as basically not only a terrorist, the terrorist leader of the largest terrorist organization in the world, Cartel del Sol, but also gave a reward, a $50,000,000 reward for his capture." "burn bag means that you have paper, like classified documents, right? You take it and you throw it into a bag." "In 1993 George Soros wrote a document ... shortly before, Clinton started expanding NATO. ... Soros World Order." "Open Society ... Open Society website." "This is about globalism and these people that want to globalize the world."

We have been given an extraordinary blessing and our country needs people like George Soros who are fearless and willing to step up. George Soros is introduced by Hillary, who admires her greatly. He praises her speech on open society and her effectiveness in visiting Central Asia. Soros agrees with Hillary that there are people who now feel the need to get involved in electoral politics. He feels the same way and wants to become engaged in the electoral process in the US. In his foundations, he has supported those who believe in the idea of an open society.

Ray McGovern emphasizes the erosion of the post-World War II security architecture, especially the U.S.-led system that emerged after the Cold War and aimed to globalize the Transatlantic Partnership. He argues that this expansion has strained the United States economically, militarily, and institutionally, and that security has become more volatile as empires exhaust both capabilities and moral legitimacy. He uses NATO’s history to illustrate how shifting perceptions of threat—historically the Soviet menace versus modern Russian and German sensitivities—shape alliance dynamics. He notes that many Americans were taught a one-sided narrative: NATO was created to contain the Warsaw Pact, while the Soviets also felt threatened by Western actions. He recalls his own indoctrination, the evolution of NATO, and the Warsaw Pact’s creation in response to West German NATO entry in 1955, explaining that “security is indivisible” and that each side’s fears drive the other’s behavior. He observes that polls show the U.S. losing its status as Russia’s main adversary, with Germany becoming the more prominent concern, which complicates the security calculus. Speaker 0 adds historical context, referencing John Lewis Gaddis and the Cold War’s security competition, where blocs prompted mutual insecurity. He discusses the Helsinki Accords and the attempt to reduce security competition, contrasting that with post-Cold War optimism that NATO expansion would stabilize Europe. He notes opposition among some American leaders to expanding NATO and argues that the Ukraine conflict reveals a problematic belief in “force for good” through military blocs, suggesting that expanded NATO has contributed to the current crisis rather than preventing it. He highlights the potential consequences of continued reliance on NATO and U.S. guarantees, questioning the credibility of Article 5 guarantees in an era of waning U.S. commitment. Speaker 1 recounts his experiences in Munich (1968) with Radio Free Europe and his opposition to encouraging Czech resistance to Soviet tanks, arguing that the Brezhnev Doctrine has a modern analogue in Ukraine. He describes the sequence leading to Crimea’s annexation, including the 2014 Maidan events, Western negotiations (Minsk Accords), and the dynamic between Western leaders and Putin. He argues that Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine arose from a perception of NATO encroachment and Western deceit, asserting that Moscow’s actions were a response to attempts to place Ukraine in NATO orbit and to secure a vital Black Sea port. He states that Russia halted further invasions in 2022 after Ukrainian negotiations to avoid NATO membership and a ceasefire, and he contends that Western actors, including Boris Johnson, pressured Ukraine to continue fighting. Speaker 0 contends that the war’s conduct was shaped by Western promises and the perception that NATO’s expansion would secure democracy. He criticizes European leaders like Kaya Kaltois (Kallas) and Zakharova’s exchange to illustrate the political theater around NATO and European security. He stresses that European leaders’ rhetoric—such as calls for “no Russian red lines”—and the reliance on U.S. military power created incentives for continued conflict. He also critiques the influence of the military-industrial complex, warning that profiteering from defense production drives war. Speaker 1 emphasizes the CIA’s dual role: one branch “for lying to the public” and overthrowing governments, and another “analysis division” that historically aimed to tell the truth. He cites the 2007 unanimous intelligence assessment that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003 and had not resumed, noting that later officials removed or reframed statements about immediate threats. He references George W. Bush’s admission that the 2007 estimate deprived him of a military option, and he points to Tulsi Gabbard’s 2019-2024 reluctance to label Iran as an imminent threat. He argues Iran is not a direct threat to the United States but is linked to Israel and regional dynamics, including Netanyahu’s role and the 2003-2007 Iran/Iraq/Israel calculus. He mentions Joe Kent’s resignation as a dissenting voice against continued war in Iran, suggesting that some military leaders and officials pushed back against aggressive policy. Speaker 0 wraps by noting the evolving U.S.-Israel relationship and the need for responsible diplomacy. He highlights the broader international realignment: NATO’s credibility waning, Europe reassessing security guarantees, and potential shifts in alliances with the Gulf States and Asia. He closes with a cautious note that genuine diplomatic leadership and intelligent intelligence analysis could help establish a more stable order, rather than perpetuating disruptive escalation.

Russia is rich in natural resources, like grain, oil, aluminum, and fertilizers, making it a key player in the global economy. Some see breaking up Russia as a way to profit immensely. After the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, NATO should have disbanded since its purpose was to counter the Soviet Union. Instead, NATO persisted, needing a new enemy to justify its existence. Russia sought to join the West, even meeting with Gazprom's leader.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Glenn unpack how European security architecture evolved and why current moves toward a Europe-centered NATO, possibly including Ukraine and excluding Russia, look so perilous. - Sachs recounts a historic 1990 opportunity offered by Mikhail Gorbachev: a “common European home” stretching from Rotterdam to Vladivostok, with internal Soviet reforms, demilitarization, and, crucially, an end to NATO expansion. The promise by Germany and the United States in pursuit of German reunification was that “NATO would not move one inch eastward.” This indivisible-security concept echoed the Helsinki final act: no country would join an alliance threatening others. Yet NATO expanded, despite that explicit commitment, and that expansion contributed to the current Ukraine conflict. - Two motives behind NATO enlargement are highlighted. First, to keep the United States in Europe as a security defender, especially for Central and Eastern European states emerging from Soviet domination, which wanted continued U.S. protection despite no evident external threat. Second, the United States used NATO enlargement as a tool for projecting American power in a unipolar world after the Soviet collapse, turning NATO into the military branch of U.S. overseas power and serving a broader hegemonic aim. - Brzezinski’s influence is emphasized: in The Grand Chessboard (1997), he argued Eurasia centered on Ukraine; “he who controls Ukraine controls Eurasia.” Brzezinski advocated expanding Europe and NATO to diminish Russia, envisioning a weakened or divided Russia. This framed Ukraine as a geopolitical prize, with Ukraine’s joining NATO seen as a strategy to prevent a revived Russian power. - The expansion waves are traced: 1999 brought Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic; 2004 added seven states including the Baltic states and Romania; 2008 and the Bucharest summit sparked a pledge that Ukraine and Georgia would join NATO, a timetable Merkel later resisted but ultimately yielded to U.S. pressure. The 2004 expansion followed the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, further destabilizing the nuclear balance and fueling Russian resentment. - The Maidan coup of 2014 in Ukraine, aided by Western support, brought to power a government that favored NATO alignment, intensifying Russian pushback and making Europe’s pro-NATO stance more central to policy, even as Russia resisted. The aim was to bring Ukraine into NATO, which Sachs argues was not defense-driven but an assertion of American hegemony. - Sachs contrasts two mindsets: Eastern Europe’s Russophobia, rooted in decades of Soviet domination, especially among the Baltic states and Poland, driving a hardline stance; and a German role that has shifted from a historic commitment to make peace with Russia (Austrian-style realpolitik) to endorsing NATO expansion for commercial investments, a shift he finds dangerous. He criticizes Merkel for acquiescing to U.S. pressure on enlargement and labels Scholz and Merkel’s posture as failures to maintain a balanced European peace. British Russophobia also colors policy, he adds, underscoring a transatlantic appetite for confrontation. - The broader risk is a security dilemma: Europe’s defensive steps may provoke offensive reactions, potentially leading toward war, especially if a “European NATO” is formed to deter or strike at Russia without credible allied protection. Sachs argues the current direction shows a lack of political and security imagination in Europe, with a remilitarization path that could be a march to war. - In closing, Sachs notes the paradox: European leaders recognize risk but still pursue a path that could escalate conflict with a nuclear power, while the debate continues about deterrence, defense, and the future of European security architecture.

I see NGOs as a hack to the system. People can establish one fairly inexpensively. George Soros was excellent at this, leveraging a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobbying politicians to direct substantial funds to it. A $10 million donation could become a billion-dollar NGO. These NGOs often have appealing names, like the Institute for Peace, but they can be graft machines. The government provides grants, assuming they're doing good work, but there are really no requirements attached to the money, and the government continues to fund them annually. While many in the government are aware they might not be effective, the system persists.