reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I have said many times that in Istanbul three years ago, we were very close to signing a full agreement. However, Boris Johnson prevented Ukraine from signing it. A Ukrainian official confirmed in an interview that they were ready to sign three years ago, but London and Washington forbade them from doing so.

He states, "Zelenskyy does not represent the opinion of Ukrainians as his democratic mandate expired in the 2024." He adds, "He received it in 2019 under the promise to find common ground with Russia and secure peace." "Today, it is president Trump who fulfills Zelenskyy's pre election promises." Therefore, "for Ukraine and Ukrainians, he has a thousand times more right to be called our president than the self proclaimed and deceitful Zelensky." He argues that "neither president Trump nor European leaders, and certainly not the self proclaimed Zelenskyy, can decide Ukraine's future without Ukrainians." He notes that "This right was simply stolen from us by canceling elections and using punitive measures to forbid speaking about peace." He warns that "On Monday, Zelensky will again be in the Oval Office, once more pushing the agenda of perpetual war."

Tonight, I want to address the ongoing situation with Ukraine. I called Ukraine's leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, a dictator, which is a term Putin would love to hear. I said Zelensky should move fast or he won't have a country left, noting his poor job and the shattered state of Ukraine. Some say I echoed Putin's talking points by questioning Zelensky's legitimacy due to the cancellation of elections. I mentioned that Zelensky admitted half the money we sent is missing, which he didn't say, and that his poll numbers are very low, but that's not true either.

The speaker compliments the president on his shirt and mentions that Trump won. They ask the president what he plans to do to stop the war in Ukraine once he becomes the 47th president. The president responds by saying that he would start by calling two people: Putin and Zelensky. He would arrange a meeting and guarantee that he could work out a deal. The president mentions that he knows exactly what he would say to each person and that a deal would be made within 24 hours.

What does your colleague from the US think about our status? It's challenging not to pursue NATO membership. We’re saddened by the situation, and Britain has always supported your NATO aspirations. However, with 30 nations in NATO, gaining unanimous agreement is difficult. We've been committed to helping you prepare for NATO membership over the past five years, and we regret the current circumstances. We want to ensure you are not pressured into recognizing Crimea as part of Russia. It’s important that you remain free from Russian influence and aggression.

The speaker suggests they rely on Putin's worldview due to their knowledge of the United States' actions, citing the US bombing of Belgrade to create Kosovo and install a NATO base. They claim the US has repeatedly engaged in illegal wars, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, and that the US overthrew Yanukovych in Kiev in 2014, despite an EU agreement for early elections. The speaker says that in 2015, Russia advocated for peace through negotiations, leading to the Minsk 2 agreement, which was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. However, the speaker claims the US government laughed at it, and Angela Merkel admitted it was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine to build strength. The speaker distrusts the US government and wants both sides to agree on terms publicly. They propose that the US and Russia commit to not overthrowing governments or expanding beyond agreed boundaries, and that NATO halt its enlargement.

I was part of the Ukrainian negotiators trying to reach a peaceful settlement with Russia. We were close to finalizing an agreement in April, but it was postponed. In my opinion, Putin realized his mistake and quickly tried to make a deal with Ukraine. He personally accepted the Istanbul communique, which was a compromise compared to Russia's initial ultimatum proposal. It's important to remember that Putin genuinely wanted a peaceful resolution with Ukraine.

The speaker suggests the US has a history of interventionism, citing the bombing of Belgrade to create Kosovo and establish a NATO base. They claim the US illegally engaged in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, with the Obama administration tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad. They also allege the US, along with right-wing Ukrainian military forces, overthrew Yanukovych in Kyiv in 2014, despite an EU agreement for early elections. The speaker states that in 2015, Russia wanted peace through negotiations, leading to the Minsk II agreement, which was unanimously voted on by the UN Security Council and signed by Ukraine. However, the speaker claims the US government laughed at it, and Angela Merkel admitted it was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine to build strength. The speaker distrusts the US government and wants both sides to agree to terms publicly, with the US agreeing to stop overthrowing governments, Russia agreeing to not advance further, and NATO agreeing to not enlarge.

Speaker 0: We have a criminal who doesn't want to negotiate, but wants to win. Speaker 1: We all understand that, Frau Stratk. Speaker 0: Yes, that's already understood. That's the tragedy. I don't want to create a fuss. We have access to Putin. We talk and say, "Come on, Vladimir, do something." But it's not like that. He thinks he's a despot. And now you have the question, and I know exactly what will happen to my email account tomorrow. I apologize in advance to my colleagues for answering the question. The question, Mr. Welter. Speaker 1: The question is simple. From my observation, I watch shows like this, I read a lot, I consider myself fairly informed. And the question to you is, why have you been delivering the exact same texts for nineteen months? The same views you just presented here. But a lot has happened. Question number two. I repeat. Speaker 0: I just said that.

the axis, that's the attitude. The White House denied this idea, stating, "we have a legitimate government and I am the duly elected president and we have a people's president according to our constitution." The European Union has done the same; "Everybody understands that the president of Ukraine is a legitimate president." We haven't had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law or essentially martial law in Ukraine. "There will be elections in Ukraine." "Yes. They have agreed to it." Zelenskyy's powers expired last May. Presidential elections weren't held under the constitution. All officials are appointed by the president. If he himself is illegitimate, then so is everyone else. He calls for a broader coalition, saying, "We will work with any partners, The US, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, BRICS countries, and, for example, North Korea."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the long-running effort to build civil society in the former Soviet Union, focusing on the Open Society Foundation’s role in Ukraine and the broader European reception of Vladimir Putin. Speaker 1 explains that the Cultural Initiative Foundation began in 1987 within the Soviet Union, and a branch was set up in Ukraine in 1990 two years before Ukraine’s independence. The foundation provided scholarships and supported civil society, and Speaker 1 asserts that the civil society’s maturity twenty-five years later is largely the work of the foundation. He notes that the foundation’s scholarships helped create a generation of leaders: those who were students twenty-five years ago became leaders later. Speaker 0 adds a personal observation that the new Ukrainian government and its leadership have been touched by Open Society and by Georgia, with many individuals personally benefiting from scholarships or having family members who did. The conversation then turns to the appeal of Ukraine as a model of open society, contrasted with broader European admiration for or susceptibility to Vladimir Putin. Speaker 0 points out that not all Europeans share the Ukrainian sympathy; she mentions that Hungary’s leader described Putin as a model, and cites Greece’s trips to Moscow and France’s Marielle Le Pen having close contacts with Putin. She asks how Speaker 1 explains Putin’s influence and appeal in Europe. Speaker 1 responds by situating the discussion in a political and historical context, noting his involvement in the collapse of the Soviet system. He describes himself as a political philanthropist and frames his perspective around the broader historical forces at play, implying that the appeal of Putin in some European circles is tied to these transformative historical currents. Key points: - The Cultural Initiative Foundation (established 1987 in the Soviet Union) and its Ukraine branch (1990) funded scholarships and civil-society work. - The foundation contributed to the maturation of civil society in Ukraine, with beneficiaries who became leaders two decades later. - Personal and institutional ties to Open Society and Georgia have touched Ukraine’s political leadership. - There is a notable divergence in Europe regarding Putin’s influence, with some leaders or groups appearing attracted to or engaging with Putin, while Ukraine’s open-society model is presented as a contrasting example. - Speaker 1 frames his view within a broader historical assessment of the collapse of the Soviet system, identifying as a political philanthropist.

Speaker 1 cannot remember the last time they spoke to Joe Biden and doesn't feel the need to remember everything. They acknowledge that Biden funds the war they are fighting but claims to have spoken to him before a special military operation, expressing their belief that supporting Ukraine and pushing Russia away is a mistake. Speaker 1 suggests asking Biden about their conversation and states that it is not appropriate for them to comment further. They confirm that they haven't spoken to Biden since before February 2020.

Negotiations with Russia in Istanbul were successful, even to the point of opening a champagne bottle in celebration. The agreement was 90% ready for a direct meeting between Putin and Zelensky, with only the size of Ukrainian armed forces in peacetime remaining. However, after the discovery of Bucha, Zelensky was shocked and the negotiations were halted. A meeting scheduled for April 9th was canceled. The speaker doesn't know if Boris Johnson's visit to Kyiv influenced this decision. Although Russia showed readiness to continue negotiations, Ukraine declined. The speaker now believes an agreement at that time was impossible, as Putin could reframe the conflict as a war against the West, opening a "Pandora's box" of global issues. The speaker views the current situation as a new "Thirty Years' War," signaling the end of the modern era.

The speaker believes Putin's recent actions suggest he may not want to end the war, but also states that Putin wants peace. The speaker asserts that if it weren't for them, Putin would want to take over all of Ukraine. The speaker believes Putin saw the Afghanistan situation and thought it was his chance to take Ukraine, which was "the apple of his eye." The speaker claims that Putin's first choice was to take all of Ukraine, but he didn't act during the speaker's term. The speaker believes Putin respects them, and because of that, Putin won't take over the entire country. The speaker does not trust many people, including the interviewer, but believes Putin respects them. The speaker concludes the war never should have happened and blames incompetent people.

The speaker suggests they rely on Putin's worldview due to their knowledge of the United States' actions, citing the US bombing of Belgrade to create Kosovo and install a NATO base. They claim the US has repeatedly engaged in illegal wars, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, and that the US, along with right-wing Ukrainian forces, overthrew Yanukovych in Kiev in 2014, despite an EU-brokered agreement for early elections. The speaker says that in 2015, Russia advocated for peace through negotiations, leading to the Minsk 2 agreement, which was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. However, the speaker claims the US government laughed at Minsk 2, and Angela Merkel admitted it was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine to build strength. The speaker distrusts the US government and wants both sides to agree to terms publicly, with the US agreeing not to overthrow governments and Russia agreeing not to advance further, with NATO not enlarging.

We will now talk about the future of Ukraine with you, as it seems you are serious about it. Putin had asked the Americans in December 2021 for written confirmation on how to handle Ukraine, but President Biden refused to negotiate on this matter. There should have been an uproar on the German side, as a potential war would involve Germany in the issue.

The speaker believes the conflict is a war between the West and Russia, not just Ukraine and Russia. Russia was offended by NATO expansion, which is why the conflict started. Putin is trying to use the recognition of the DPR and LPR regions as being similar to the West's recognition of Kosovo's independence. The speaker hopes to continue receiving support, especially from the United States. The US military is reportedly supportive, and communication channels are open. The speaker appreciates the support with Javelins and other missiles, joking that the US sent Angelina Jolie last time.

The speaker notes that they are not the pen pal but the phone pal of Poroshenko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and now the speaker themselves. For the last four years, they have been on the phone two to three hours a week with those folks. There is an overwhelming instinct in Europe to say, before you guys became president, this was owned by Russia anyway. They ask, what difference does it make? Why are you making us engage in these sanctions? The speaker recalls last year, they were authorized to say they’d do the second tranche of a billion dollars, and he didn’t fire his chief prosecutor. Because the speaker has the confidence of the president, they were there. They said, “I’m not signing it. Until you fire him, we’re not signing it.” They clarified, “We’re not doing it.” Until you form a new government and you actually bring in someone who will move on this, they’re not playing. It’s not because they’re trying to play hardball, but because they know if they give an excuse to the EU, there are at least five countries right now that want to say, wooah, want out. What they are putting together now is a basic detailed road map of who goes first and who goes second. There are two pieces: one is the security guarantees that are to flow from Russia, and two, the political steps that Ukraine has to take. Some of the steps are very difficult to take. They’ve already done the energy piece, they’ve done some other things, but the point is that when you say the dumb boss is gonna have a special status and you’re gonna amend your constitution, it’s like saying, okay, you know, Texas and Wyoming—Texas is gonna have a special status that we don’t want because we want Mexico to have more influence in Texas. And we’re gonna pass that through the United States Congress. So there are some really tough stuff they’ve gotta do. They’re willing, and the speaker is convinced they will do it.

In 2014, foreign ministers from Poland, Germany, and France acted as guarantors of an agreement between then-President Yanukovych's government and the opposition, stipulating a peaceful resolution. According to the speaker, a coup d'etat occurred two days later, instigated by "American cronies" to create conflict, instead of winning through elections. The speaker claims the European guarantors feigned ignorance. The speaker states that this, along with NATO expansion towards Russia's borders and the "bloody events" in Donbas for eight years, led to the current tragedy.

So, back in 2014, Russia occupied parts of Ukraine, and nobody stopped them. From 2014 to 2022, people kept dying, despite our conversations and signed ceasefire deals with Macron and Merkel. Russia broke the ceasefire, killed our people, and didn't exchange prisoners. What kind of diplomacy is that? It's disrespectful to come here and complain when the US is trying to prevent the destruction of Ukraine. You're drafting conscripts because of manpower issues. Be thankful for our help. Everyone has problems during war. We're staying strong in our country. From the start, we've been alone, but we are thankful. We want to stop the war, but we need guarantees for any ceasefire. Don't ask about ceasefires, ask about our people.

I see the hatred for Putin, which makes a deal tough. I want to get this settled and align with Europe. I could be tougher, but that won't get a deal done. We had a president who talked tough, but Putin still invaded. Diplomacy is the path to peace. Putin occupied parts of Ukraine in 2014, and nobody stopped him. We signed ceasefire and gas contracts, but he broke them, killing our people and not exchanging prisoners. What kind of diplomacy are we talking about? It's disrespectful to litigate this here. You should be thanking me for trying to bring this to a conference.

We're hearing Russia wants Ukraine to hold new elections to sign a peace deal, and the US position on that is complex. Ukraine hasn't had elections due to martial law. The leader's approval rating is low, around 4%. Much of the country is devastated. Many cities have been decimated, though Kyiv hasn't been as badly affected, maybe out of concern for the impact of heavy bombardment. For Ukraine to have a legitimate seat at the table, the people need to have their say. It's been a long time since they've had an election. This isn't just Russia's view, but mine and that of many other countries as well.

Russia occupied parts of Ukraine, including Crimea, starting in 2014. During the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, no one stopped him as people died on the contact line. In 2019, I signed a ceasefire deal with Macron, Merkel, and him, but he broke it, killing people and not exchanging prisoners. We need diplomacy to end the destruction of Ukraine. We have problems during the war, like everyone else. We are staying strong and thankful for the support, but we are not winning. You have given us billions of dollars in military equipment. I have said thank you many times to the American people. We want to stop the war, but we want a ceasefire with guarantees. Ask our people about a ceasefire. Obama gave us sheets, but Trump gave us javelins. Without your support, we have no cards.

I'm aligned with the US and the world, and I want to end this conflict. It's hard to make a deal with so much hatred. I could be tough, but that won't get us anywhere. For four years, tough talk didn't stop Putin. Diplomacy is the path to peace. Others didn't stop Putin from occupying parts of Ukraine since 2014. We signed ceasefire and gas contracts, but he broke them, killing people and not exchanging prisoners. I am trying to end the destruction of your country. Everyone has problems during war, even you. You've allowed yourself to be in a bad position. You're gambling with lives and World War III, and that's disrespectful to the US. You haven't said thank you, and campaigned against us. Your country is in trouble and not winning. If we are out, you will be fighting on your own.

In 2014, three foreign ministers from Poland, Germany, and France arrived in Ukraine to sign an agreement between the government and the opposition. However, just two days later, a coup d'etat took place, orchestrated by our American allies. The European guarantors of the agreement claimed ignorance. This event, along with the desire to bring Ukraine into NATO, has led to the ongoing tragedy in the Donbas region.