reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims the Russia-Ukraine war is an extension of Russiagate, which desensitized the Democratic party to hating Russia. According to the speaker, Democrats needed an explanation for Trump's victory besides their own failures, and initially blamed Cambridge Analytica. When that didn't satisfy, the "Russia narrative" emerged. The speaker says Russiagate led Democrats to view Russia negatively, beyond a normal Western perspective, as if Trump were a Kremlin attaché. Thus, after Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the Democrat party, formerly anti-war, showed a subdued response to funding the war. The speaker suggests this is because Putin became an acceptable villain, conflated with Trump, due to Russiagate. Another speaker adds that many were pro-Russia when it was Soviet because it was anti-Christian, but turned against it when it became Orthodox again. The speaker concludes that skepticism about sending money to Ukraine, once a left-wing position, was subdued because Putin became an acceptable villain for the Democrat party.

Leftlezer investigates why the Dutch C7NLD assault rifle—a standard weapon of the Dutch military—appears in the hands of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK), an extreme-right group fighting on Ukraine’s side, and what the Netherlands’ weapon exports mean for who ultimately uses them. Key findings and claims presented: - The Russian Volunteer Corps is described as an extremist group that fights for Ukraine but is led by a Russian founder, Dennis Capushtin, born in Moscow and later active in Germany. Capushtin is portrayed as having organized extensive neo‑Nazi-leaning activity, including fighting trainings and weapon training; the German Interior Ministry labeled him one of the most influential neo‑Nazi activists in Germany, effectively barring him from entry. - The RDK portrays itself as a political-military organization serving the Russian nation, aiming to dismantle the current political regime in the Russian Federation, with a core of fighters engaging in armed struggle. It claims leadership under the Ukrainian Military Secret Service and asserts involvement beyond defending Ukraine, including sabotage networks in Russia. - Reports describe RDK’s ideology as including esoteric nationalist elements, with public references to Hitler as a spiritual figure. A Tulefest event hosted bands such as Hitlers Hamer, Adolf-cult, and Apartheid, which Bellingcat describes as esoteric nationalism blending neo-Nazism with occult ideas. - The video notes a shift in 2023 where Dennis’s activities reportedly extended to attempting to “invade” Russia, with some weapons (including Scars) appearing with the RDK in Russia. This is used to argue that the stated aim of defending Ukraine had broadened to actions against Russia. - The central concern is whether Dutch-made Cold 7 NLD rifles, exported under Dutch defense ministry rules, ended up with the RDK or other extremist actors. The Netherlands exports large quantities of weapons, including to Ukraine, and Dutch law requires end-user declarations and possible EU/UN oversight. There is a nuance: some RDK activities are described as operating under a Ukrainian authority, which could complicate end-user controls. - The ministers and officials are pressed on why and how the Netherlands allowed a transfer of Cold 7 NLD rifles that might have landed with extremist groups. The Dutch export licensing process is explained: weapons supplied to Ukraine may be used by Ukrainian forces under international law, with end-user terms set forth in end-user declarations; transfers to other parties require Dutch government permission. - The defense ministry responds with a standard position: Netherlands supplies military materiel to Ukraine to assist against Russian aggression, with use governed by international law; the exact distribution among units or sub-units is not disclosed. The ministry refuses to confirm specific end-use details and notes that they cannot reflect on subunits that weapons may reach. - The interview includes attempts to question a former minister (Brekomans) about signing export licenses, and the current stance is that the details are handled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the defense ministry. The current ministry of foreign affairs provides a response about broad policy and the possibility of rapid EU-wide assessments; the defense ministry declines to confirm the specific distribution of weapons to extremist groups. - The program concludes by asserting significant public interest and calls for further scrutiny of Dutch spending on Ukrainian defense—requesting readers to donate for more critical reporting. Notes on responses: - The program presents a narrative linking Dutch C7NLD rifles to the RDK and to far-right networks, while presenting official positions that emphasize general end-use rules and the broad objective of aiding Ukraine, without providing a definitive public confirmation that the weapons were used by RDK or other extremist groups. The documentary style emphasizes ongoing information requests and the lack of explicit disclosures from relevant ministries.

This transcript argues that Putin’s denazification claim rests on the presence of neo‑Nazi symbols and actors in Ukraine. It states the red and black flag is 'the flag of the Bandera faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists' and the blue and yellow shield symbol is that of what was called the Azov Battalion; these symbols are described as 'pro Nazi symbols' such as the Wolfsangel and the Sonnenrad or black sun. It asserts 'The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists were Nazi collaborators during World War II' and that Bandera’s followers committed pogroms and ethnic cleansing. It links the 2014 Maidan revolution to Bandarite influence, naming figures like Yarosz, Beletsky, and Avakov, who allegedly integrated far-right militias into the National Guard. It notes Zelensky’s Jewish background amid claims he aligns with Western interests, criticizes Western media for whitewashing, and points to social media normalization of Azov symbols, urging anti‑war action.

Zelensky was an actor and comedian. He was never involved in politics, never involved in governance, government, nothing. Not one of those things. In 2014, when Ukraine's government was overthrown in a coup, Zelenskyy was placed there, his only experience being playing the role on TV and in movies. Ukraine has always been known to be one of the top 10 most corrupt countries in our entire world. This war started in 2014, and although Russia made the first move, the question you guys need to start asking yourselves is, was Russia actually the aggressor? Zelenskyy has banned all opposing media. Zelenskyy has single handedly banned any oppositional party. There have been documented cases of Zelensky's military showing neo Nazi strategy called the Azov battalion. Liberals, who was laundering money with Russia and Ukraine? Hunter Biden.

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

Undercover investigation reveals offensive language within Nigel Farage's Reform UK campaign in Clacton. Canvassers expressed racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic views. Farage's team disavowed these comments, stating they do not reflect party values. Offensive individuals have been removed from the campaign. Farage expressed dismay and emphasized that the sentiments expressed do not align with his views or party policy. The campaign aims to represent all voters in Clacton within legal limits.

In 2014, I predicted a war in Ukraine due to NATO and EU expansion, which I believed provoked Russia. I've been warning about this since the 1990s, and I was criticized for it. Recently, George Robertson, a former NATO secretary general, echoed this sentiment, stating that EU expansion directly contributed to the conflict. Regarding Brexit, two main expectations were controlling our borders and reducing immigration, yet numbers have surged due to a conservative government prioritizing cheap labor. Additionally, Rishi Sunak's promise to eliminate 4,000 EU laws was abandoned, hindering regulatory simplification.

The liberal media paints me as a fascist, but I'm focused on family, nation, and God. We're allies with the U.S., yet treated worse than Russia. NATO's strategy is provoking war, which we can't win. Regime change in Russia is dangerous; anarchy is the worst outcome. Ukraine is losing the war, a tragedy fueled by a bad strategy. The West misunderstands Russia; their priority is unity, not freedom. Killing Putin won't work. A deal providing security for Ukraine, but not NATO membership, is needed. Only the U.S. can broker peace; call back Trump, his foreign policy was the best in decades. Liberals today are against freedom, enforcing their ideology. We have a Christian, national view.

Oleg Thjavnibok founded Svoboda, a radical nationalist party known for its anti-Semitic and anti-Russian views. Despite being ranked fifth in the Simon Wiesenthal Center's list of antisemitic world leaders in 2012, Svoboda gained a significant following. The party, previously called the Social Nationalist Party, has historical ties to Nazi Germany. Its leader, Holitanybok, openly targeted Jews and ethnic Russians. The US government's association with Svoboda, as seen in meetings with Victoria Nuland and Senator John McCain, raises questions about why they would support such extremist groups. The EU has condemned Svoboda as racist, anti-Semitic, and xenophobic.

The opposition in Ukraine includes extremist groups like Svoboda, which has ties to Nazi Germany. The leader of Svoboda, Holitanybok, has openly targeted Jews and ethnic Russians. Despite being condemned by the EU, the US government backed these extremists, thinking they could control the situation. Victoria Nuland from the US State Department was caught on a leaked call discussing who they would put in power. They didn't think Klitschko should be part of the government.

Vladimir Putin recently made controversial claims about Western elites, suggesting they have been involved in horrific practices for centuries. While some question his true affiliations, given his past connections to globalist organizations, it's possible he genuinely believes his statements. If that's the case, there's support for his perspective. The assertion is made that he seems to understand the realities of Western leaders, whom he describes in extreme terms. This view has gained traction among certain groups, leading to a belief that many Western leaders are involved in sinister activities.

The speaker discusses the historical relationship between Russia and Ukraine, emphasizing that the majority of people in both countries considered them to be essentially the same. However, after World War II, nationalist and Nazi elements fled to the United States and Canada, and eventually came to power in Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The speaker argues that these individuals were aggressive and aligned with fascist ideologies. They were later persecuted by the Germans not because they changed their views, but because they realized Germany was losing the war. The speaker concludes that these individuals remained Nazis and later became neo-Nazis.

You support war criminals. If you don't stand with Ukraine, you're a fascist. Don't waste your time talking with a Russian camera. Do you think it's fascistic to threaten to take away Canadian citizens citizenship because you don't agree with their political leaning? You're a well known supporter of Antifa. My uncles fought fascists all over Europe. They'd fight your fascist. You stand outside the Russian embassy and repeat Putin's talking points. You're an extremist supporting Putin. I'm not gonna have peace until the war criminal is gone. Fuck off, Putin troll. What about political violence? I have been the victim of violence from Antifa. So you're saying I deserve the violence from Antifa, I was jumped, robbed, beaten. I came here to confront you on your terrible policy.

Undercover investigation reveals offensive language within Nigel Farage's Reform UK campaign in Clacton. Canvassers make racist remarks, including suggesting shooting asylum seekers. Farage's team distances themselves from these views. Parker, a canvasser, expresses anti-Islam sentiments and criticizes police promoting LGBTQ+ pride. Reform UK denounces unacceptable comments and removes individuals with such views. Farage expresses dismay and states the views do not align with his or the party's beliefs.

Navalny was groomed by the CIA during a Yale internship and supported by British intelligence. He participated in coup attempts against Putin in 2007, 2008, and 2012. Navalny made derogatory remarks about people from the Caucasus and Georgians. Despite being portrayed as a symbol of democracy, he was a nationalist and disruptive force, not a true democrat. Navalny never had significant national support and was used by the CIA to undermine the Russian government. Ultimately, he was labeled as a traitor.

The Monk Debate on the global refugee crisis features four panelists with sharply differing views on who should be admitted, under what conditions, and what values should guide Western policy. The opening statements establish the core fault lines: support for the refugee convention and burden sharing versus skepticism about mass migration, security risks, and cultural impacts. Louise Arbour (supporting the resolution, “Give us your tired, your poor…”) argues that the lines written by Emma Lazarus on the Statue of Liberty capture the spirit and the letter of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The international framework obligates asylum for those fleeing political and other forms of persecution, with refugees not to be penalized for illegal entry or stay, and non-refoulement to prevent return to danger. Arbour emphasizes the heavy burden on countries at Europe’s borders and the need for international cooperation and burden sharing. She notes Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Libya as contexts driving refugee flows, and points to neighboring hosts like Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey hosting millions (she cites 4,500,000 Syrians) and to external borders of Europe. For Canada, she argues that geography creates a special obligation to provide a generous resettlement program and calls for smart, safe travel routes to undercut smugglers and for resources to meet the challenge. She acknowledges fears about social change but insists that social fabric is changing anyway in an interconnected world, and contends that the greatest threat to Western values is hypocrisy in defending them while acting contrary to them. She anticipates arguments about Muslims and security but rejects the idea that Muslims inherently threaten liberal democracy; she frames the issue as welcoming those who have come from elsewhere and will build an evolving, free Canada. Mark Stein (opposing the resolution), with Nigel Farage as his partner, frames the debate around distinguishing refugees from economic migrants and questions whether the waves reaching Europe reflect genuine asylum needs. Stein argues that many European arrivals are not refugees in the traditional sense, citing demographic distortions (in Europe, notably the predominance of young men among asylum applicants) and the potential threat to Western norms. He uses vivid examples of violent incidents attributed to migrants, including Cologne and broader concerns about sexual violence and public safety, to argue that migrant rights have, in his view, overtaken women’s rights and child protection in Europe. He asserts that liberal democracies are being transformed by a large influx of migrants from cultures with different women's rights norms, and he contends that Europe’s political elites, including Merkel, have broadened refugee definitions beyond classical standards. He advocates stricter processing mechanisms, better screening, and offshore processing to ensure that genuine refugees are identified, while opposing what he characterizes as an open-door policy that risks altering Western life. He also points to Christian and other persecuted groups in the Middle East, urging that those groups deserve protection, but he resists a blanket expansion of refugee status for all migrants. Nigel Farage (closing segment ally of Stein) pushes a similar line, arguing that Western leaders have misdefined refugees, with Merkel’s policy opening doors to large numbers who do not meet traditional refugee criteria. He criticizes the EU’s handling of the refugee influx, particularly the widening of the refugee definition by European Union mechanisms and the Turkey-EU deal, and he underscores security fears by citing the presence of jihadi fighters among asylum seekers and the threat of a “fifth column.” Farage contends that the public debate has been distorted by a belief in universal migrant rights and that there should be a robust processing system, with offshore processing and screening for genuine refugees, while prioritizing Christians and other persecuted minorities in the region. He argues that, in Europe, the combination of high levels of unfiltered migration and perceived threats to social order threatens Western civilization’s core values, calling for a more cautious, lawful approach to admissions. Simon Schama (providing measured counterpoints and bridging insight) emphasizes the humanitarian imperative and the historical role of liberal democracies in absorbing refugees, while warning against demonizing Muslims or treating migrant communities as an existential threat. He notes that 61% of asylum applications were in one dataset, challenging some exactly-referenced figures, and argues that the refugee crisis cannot be reduced to caricatures of “rape epidemics” or monolithic cultural blocs. Schama contends that a genuine pluralist society should engage with Muslim communities to counter extremism, citing examples of imams and scholars who denounce jihadism and defend a peaceful interpretation of faith. He stresses the need for screening and safe integration but cautions against inflating fears, pointing out that the solution requires addressing the root causes of conflict and supporting those who flee persecution. He also references Amnesty International’s report on Turkey’s treatment of Syrian refugees as a factor in reconsidering the EU-Turkey arrangement, and stresses the importance of preserving civil liberties and free speech within welcoming societies. Throughout the debate, the participants repeatedly return to central questions: What counts as a refugee under the 1951 Convention? How should wealthier nations share the burden? How can societies balance humanitarian commitments with security, integration, and the protection of women’s and minority rights? What is the role of Australia’s model versus European approaches? And how should Western democracies adapt their policies to confront both the humanitarian crisis and the threats posed by extremism, while preserving liberal values and the rule of law? The exchange closes with a reminder of the divergent impulses: welcome and protect genuine refugees, or implement stricter processing and integration measures to safeguard social cohesion and security. The audience's stance shifts over the course of the debate, reflecting the high stakes and complexity of the issue.

Alexander McCurryst interviews Alexander McCurryst podcast host Alexander McCurryst (“the Duran” host Glenn) about European and British political crises. Alexander McCurryst argues that across Europe there is a “denationalized political elite” that concentrates on foreign policy—especially Russia and the conflict in Ukraine—while losing attention to accumulating domestic problems. He connects this disengagement to declining approval ratings, weakening of opposition, and rising political volatility. On Britain specifically, he says the crisis stems from Prime Minister Kirst Palmer and the broader leadership being narrowly focused on “foreign policy” framed euphemistically, largely centered on Russia, Ukraine, and wider European integration rather than basic British concerns. He characterizes Palmer as constantly traveling abroad and “never hear kir,” implying disengagement from British problems. He argues that the established political elite is unlikely to change course even if Palmer’s time as prime minister ends, because successors would be expected to continue the same approach while only trying to become more popular. Regarding Nigel Farage and Reform, Alexander McCurryst says Farage comes from outside the elite and has previously suggested changes to British foreign policy, including writing that the Ukraine war was provoked by actions taken by the West. However, he argues that as Farage gets closer to power he talks more like the elite does—especially on relations with Russia and Europe—and he does not believe Farage would have the political authority or skills to carry out the major sea change required. He adds that Farage’s priorities include attracting defections from Conservative Party elites and that the link between foreign policy and the domestic policy crisis is not understood. Alexander McCurryst then describes Britain’s economic stagnation as particularly severe. He points to over-investment in the financial system in the 1980s, deindustrialization, reliance on North Sea oil, and exposure after the 2008 period as a “one-dimensional economy” lacking strategic depth. He lists long-running outcomes since 2008: flat or falling living standards, flat output, rising debt as government costs increase, rising taxes, and widening budget and trade deficits. He also claims Britain is more boxed in to the foreign-policy consensus than other European countries, lacking examples of strong domestic challengers akin to parties like National Rally, left-wing forces such as Melenchon, or Italy’s Salvini. He argues that this combination creates rising public anger and exasperation and could lead to sudden, sharper political shifts that are not moderated by consensus, likening Britain to a pressure cooker approaching an “almost pre revolutionary situation.” He suggests legitimacy crises are expanding across Europe and sees administrative and repressive measures as signs of insecurity and inability to adapt. The discussion turns to Germany as a comparative case. Glenn highlights the Alternative for Germany (AfD) as Germany’s most popular party, described as relatively new, and claims Chancellor Blackrock Mertz is less popular than Palmer. Glenn argues Germany is changing in ways that contradict post–World War II lessons and mentions targeting the opposition, including describing AfD as an extremist organization by intelligence services. Alexander McCurryst responds that in both Britain and Germany these legitimacy crises show the political system cannot adapt and tries to manage instability through repressive tools. He contrasts Germany and Britain’s historical orientation toward Russia: Germany is described as moving against the grain of policies aiming for stability with Russia, including “Ostpolitik” approaches associated with earlier decades, while Britain is described as having an “almost surfeit of policy” anchored in founding myths. Glenn then asks about France and other smaller states, mentioning attempts to cancel election results in Romania, a new election in Bulgaria, celebration of a possible end to Orban in Hungary that did not produce profound change, and Slovakia “holding the line.” Alexander McCurryst says smaller countries show more political agency and vitality partly because they have fewer security-state constraints and are easier for people to organize, but argues big countries still determine European direction. He lists Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Britain as decisive, while smaller states influence dialogue but cannot change overall direction alone. On diplomacy with Russia, Glenn notes a shift in rhetoric after years of arguing “weapons are the path to peace” and boycotting diplomacy, and asks whether it will go anywhere. Alexander McCurryst says events are pressing the elites but that they are not acting with conviction. He claims that by May they are still not agreed on who will lead negotiations with Russians and have not defined realistic objectives. He cites an episode where Macron sent two people to Moscow and says the Russians responded that it was not negotiation but a one-way dialogue. He argues that without deciding what to talk about and who represents Europe, talks cannot advance. Glenn adds that Europeans want a “seat at the table” but refuse to talk to Russia, citing Kaya Kallas’s statements about not talking to Putin and Russia being broken up into smaller countries. Alexander McCurryst agrees that the mindset driving domestic crisis also affects foreign-policy decision-making: elites insist their values must prevail and retreat into values language that blocks real solutions. He claims Western media narratives increasingly depict Ukraine as winning and portrays recurring stories about Putin being sick or dying and corruption in Ukraine as proof democracy is working, describing this as a “hope strategy.” Finally, Alexander McCurryst connects the crisis to Europe losing its place in the world and becoming less coherent with the United States. He argues Britain’s belief it remains a great power despite decline amplifies the struggle with Russia. He warns that without understanding with Russia Europe risks becoming a “backwater.” He says Europe still has time to change but that goodwill in Russia has been lost and that Russia controls the “gateway” to Eurasia. He concludes that despair should be avoided, claiming Europe is near a “tipping point,” with Britain and Germany already in crises and elections in France potentially bringing faster change, but that Europe must adapt to a post-American world; otherwise it risks remaining a small region left behind.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen advocates for digital IDs, claiming they can boost emerging economies. Nigel Farage criticizes this as a dangerous move towards global government control and wealth redistribution. Von der Leyen wants a digital ID enforced by the early 2030s, along with a central bank digital currency, creating a cashless society. Farage warns of potential data breaches and the risk of a Chinese-style social credit system. He emphasizes the importance of democratic nation states cooperating and trading together, rather than surrendering sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats. Farage concludes by affirming a belief in liberty and freedom.

The Azov battalion, a militia in Ukraine, is said to be affiliated with Nazi ideology. Some argue that the presence of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is not a concern, as mainstream outlets in the US have previously reported on it. However, there are forces within Ukraine that do not view the Russian-speaking population as equals, with Azov being a major representation of this. The Azov soldier openly displayed Nazi symbols and even gave talks to middle school students in the US. While they may use different imagery, they are still associated with neo-Nazism. Despite previous bans on US assistance, recent history seems to have been forgotten since the February invasion.

Mark Rutte, the former prime minister, has been appointed as the secretary general of NATO. The speaker claims Rutte ruined the country by flooding it with immigrants, destroying the economy, and targeting farmers. The speaker alleges Rutte bought his position in NATO by spending billions of taxpayer euros on Ukraine and constantly hugging Zelensky. According to the speaker, Rutte, not even in office for one day, stated that Ukraine should be part of NATO and that its path to membership is irreversible. The speaker believes Rutte is determined to drag everyone into World War 3 and is a threat to society and the world.

I called Zelenskyy a welfare queen because he's constantly asking for money with arrogance, despite billions already unaccounted for. We're working to protect his borders while ours are ignored. His wife shops in Paris, and Ukrainian oligarchs buy yachts. I've had no respect for him since day one. Trump's approach was refreshing, considering how much Zelenskyy has taken from America without respect. He wears military fatigues, acting downtrodden, but he's been on magazine covers and wanted to attend the Oscars. I believe all politicians lie, so I analyzed speeches and transcripts. Putin stated NATO's eastward expansion violated prior assurances when the Berlin Wall fell. We're the aggressors, not him, pushing NATO expansion. Zelenskyy has suspended elections, locked down churches and nuns. I don't like him at all.

Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform party in the UK, stated that anyone who has lived in Wales for five to ten years, paid taxes, and obeyed the law is fully part of the Welsh community. The speaker suggests that this sentiment is indicative of a larger problem, where multiculturalism leads to the decline of Western values. They claim that politicians and public figures in the UK are unwilling to acknowledge this. The speaker references Pat Buchanan, who questioned what would hold the US together when whites become a minority and there is no common religion or beliefs. The speaker asserts that this question has been answered with "nothing." The speaker concludes that countries embracing diversity are becoming unrecognizable and that this change was forced upon people by their leaders. They believe reversing this "disastrous experiment" should be a top priority, otherwise violence and dysfunction will worsen and potentially destroy the United States.

Donald Trump first appeared on the Soviet Union's radar in 1977 through his marriage to Ivana Zelnikova and allegedly became a target of a Czech intelligence spying operation in cooperation with the KGB. In 1987, after befriending a KGB asset, Trump and Ivana visited Russia, where he was encouraged to enter politics. The Soviets studied Trump's personality, and in 1988, he took out a New York Times ad criticizing Ronald Reagan's foreign policy and questioning US participation in NATO. He echoed these sentiments on CNN, calling NATO payments disproportionate. In 2016, Trump became president, and according to the Mueller report, Russia helped him get elected by exploiting American social and racial divisions and stealing Hillary Clinton's emails. As an ex-president, Trump continues to promote pro-Russia talking points. Vladimir Putin aims to rebuild the Soviet Union by annexing Ukraine and jailing opposition, while Republicans are accused of echoing Russian talking points.