TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

Speaker 0 calls to pressure Russia, noting that 'the credibility of these efforts these efforts we are undertaking today are depending on at least a ceasefire from the beginning of the serious negotiations from next step on.' He emphasizes 'this aspect' and states he would 'like to see a ceasefire from the next meeting, which should be a trilateral meeting wherever it take place.' He adds, 'Well, we're gonna let the president go over and talk to the president.' The remarks frame the demand for a ceasefire as a prerequisite for serious negotiations and indicate the next meeting should be trilateral, with discussions transitioning to the presidents.

The panelists discuss whether recent developments around Ukraine, NATO security guarantees, and Western support can produce a peace agreement acceptable to Russia and Ukraine, and what the war’s trajectory might look like by year-end and beyond. Initial reactions and sticking points - Speaker 1 sees potential in recent moves if true and reliable, arguing Ukraine is signaling goodwill to the United States, but remains skeptical that a peace deal will satisfy both sides given core demands over territory and Donbas control. He emphasizes the Donbas as the central unresolved issue. - Speaker 2 notes Putin’s need to show tangible gains to save face, arguing the war is being fought to achieve declared goals and that Russia will not sign a deal unless it secures substantial results. Security guarantees, no-fly zones, and peacekeeping - The discussion centers on two main proposed points: U.S. security guarantees (including possible no-fly zone enforcement) and a European-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine. There is debate about how binding such guarantees would be and whether Russia would accept them, with concerns about the Budapest Memorandum’s history of non-fulfillment versus what a new, more comprehensive, legally binding framework might look like. - Speaker 1 points out that even a robust security package would require Russian agreement, which he doubts will be forthcoming given Moscow’s current aims. He underscores that Europe’s and the U.S.’s support for Ukraine is contingent on political will, which could waver, but he notes Ukraine’s trust gap with U.S. guarantees given past experiences. - Speaker 2 stresses that Putin’s aims include defeating NATO and achieving a U.S.-level accommodation (a “Yalta 2.0” style deal) while keeping Western control over Europe at arm’s length. He argues Putin would accept U.S. and possibly some European troops but not a formal NATO presence on Ukrainian soil, especially in western Donbas or beyond. Budapest memorandum vs. new guarantees - Both sides discuss the difference between a nonbinding Budapest Memorandum and a more robust, legally binding security guarantee. Speaker 1 highlights Ukraine’s past trust in security assurances despite U.S. and European failures to honor them, suggesting skepticism about the enforceability of any new guarantees. Speaker 2 suggests that a stronger, more binding arrangement could be essential for Russia to accept any settlement, but that Moscow would still resist concessions over full Donbas control. On-the-ground realities and war dynamics - The panelists agree Russia is advancing on multiple fronts, though the pace and strategic significance of gains vary. They discuss Ukraine’s ability to sustain the fight through Western weapons flows and domestic production (including drones and shells). They acknowledge the risk of Western fatigue and the potential for a more protracted war, even as Ukraine builds its own capabilities to prolong the conflict. - The West’s long-term willingness to fund and arm Ukraine is debated: Speaker 1 argues Europe’s economy is strained but notes continued political support for Ukraine, which could outlast Russia’s economic stamina. Speaker 2 emphasizes that Russia’s economy is fragile mainly in the provinces, while Moscow and Saint Petersburg remain relatively insulated; he also points to BRICS support (China and India) as sustaining Moscow politically and economically. Economic and strategic pressures - The role of energy revenues and sanctions is debated. Speaker 1 suggests Russia can be pressured economically to seek a deal, while Speaker 2 counters that Russia’s economy is adapting, with China and India providing strategic support that helps Moscow resist Western coercion. They discuss shadow fleet strikes and global energy markets as tools to erode Russia’s war-finance capability. - There is disagreement about whether, over time, economic pressure alone could force regime change in Russia. Speaker 1 is skeptical that penalties will trigger a voluntary Russian withdrawal, while Speaker 2 argues that sustained economic and political pressure, combined with Western unity, could push toward a settlement. Strategies and potential outcomes - Putin’s internal calculus is described as existential: he seeks a win that he can publicly claim to legitimize his rule and justify the costs of the war to the Russian people and elites. This shapes his openness to concessions and to the kinds of guarantees he would accept. - Alexander posits that a near-term peace could emerge from a deal brokered at high levels (potentially involving Trump and Putin) that reshapes European security with U.S. leadership and BRICS engagement, while Paul emphasizes that any credible end to the conflict would require Ukraine and Russia to agree to a swap-like territorial arrangement and to accept a new security framework that deters renewed aggression. End-of-year and longer-term outlooks - By year-end, the panel agrees it is unlikely that a major peace agreement will be realized under the current conditions; any real breakthrough would depend on significant concessions, including Donbas arrangements, and a credible security guarantee framework. - By the end of next year, both expect a continuation of a contested balance: Ukraine likely to press for stronger Western guarantees and EU integration, Russia seeking to preserve Donbas gains while navigating internal and external pressures. Alexander envisions two “wins” emerging: the United States under Trump coordinating a broader peace framework, and China leveraging its economic influence to shape Europe’s response. Paul anticipates a gradual trajectory with ongoing military and economic pressures and a continued stalemate unless a major concession reshapes incentives on both sides.

Good afternoon. I ask you to convene here today to inform you about how the negotiations are going on on the Ukrainian crisis and how the negotiations are developing in the bilateral format with the Ukrainian delegation in one way or another. And two, I'd like to inform you about at what stage we are currently with the American administration. We know that they are taking quite vigorous and sincere efforts to put an end to the hostilities, to put an end to this crisis, and to reach an agreement that would be of interest for all the parties involved in this conflict to ensure durable conditions for peace between our countries and in Europe in general and globally as well. If the next stage would be agreement about strategic offensive weapons, that's what I wanted to say in the beginning.

As of February 2024, Speaker 0 asks if the person in question has the freedom to directly communicate with the speaker or their government to resolve the ongoing issues. Speaker 1 responds that the person considers themselves the head of state and won the elections. They believe that the coup d'etat in 2014 is the main source of power. Despite flaws in the government, the person is recognized as the president by the United States, Europe, and most of the world. Speaker 1 mentions negotiations with Ukraine in Istanbul, where the person was aware and even signed a preliminary document. However, they claim that former British Prime Minister Johnson dissuaded them from signing, leading to a sense of ridicule and sadness.

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

So, we just had a very intense meeting between President Trump, Vice President Vance, and Zelensky. Vance suggested diplomacy for peace, but Zelensky quickly shot that down, bringing up a past broken deal with Putin, and questioned what kind of diplomacy Vance was even talking about. Vance responded by mentioning that Zelensky was being disrespectful. Trump then intervened, telling Zelensky not to dictate how they should feel, pointing out Ukraine's weak position and the risk of gambling with World War III. I made it clear that my alignment is with the United States and the world's well-being. I need to be able to negotiate without the kind of hatred Zelensky has for Putin, which makes reaching a deal difficult. I reminded everyone that without the United States, Ukraine has no leverage.

Checklist: - Identify core claims: war in Ukraine not about NATO; Putin’s draft treaty; democracy vs. other motives; sphere of influence; West’s actions. - Remove repetition and filler; keep unique points. - Preserve key phrases and claims from the transcript where feasible. - Include notable comparisons (Hitler) and the Lindsey Graham reference. - Produce a concise, neutral summary within 378–473 words. Several speakers insist the war in Ukraine is not about NATO enlargement. Speaker 0 notes that President Putin sent a draft treaty to NATO promising no further enlargement as a precondition for not invading Ukraine; we rejected that, and he went to war to prevent NATO from closing near his borders. A flashback reinforces the point: “This is fundamentally not about NATO expansion,” with repeated lines such as “It’s not about NATO,” “Nothing to do with NATO,” and “NATO is not the reason.” Others push an alternative framing: the conflict is about democratic expansion rather than NATO. “This is not about NATO expansion,” one speaker repeats, followed by, “This is about democratic expansion” and “Ukraine is banning political parties… Ukraine restricts books and music… Ukraine won’t hold elections. It’s about democracy.” Still others insist the war has nothing to do with NATO, reiterating statements like “It has nothing to do with NATO” and “Nothing to do with NATO expansion,” while acknowledging that “security purposes” are claimed by some. A thread develops that Russia seeks a sphere of influence over Ukraine, and that the West’s challenges to Russian interests may have contributed to the conflict. “Hang on. I mean, the two are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, Russia has wished for a sphere of influence over Ukraine. But if the West had not challenged Russian interests so directly, I think that there there was a chance to avoid this war.” Putin’s demand for a binding pledge never to enlarge NATO is contrasted with the claim that the invasion is driven by broader ambitions. Moral condemnations appear: “The reason why Putin invaded Ukraine is because of his evil,” with references to “evil” and Putin’s goal to rebuild a Soviet empire, echoed by a comparison to Hitler. “Hitler… He’s a Hitler,” and “We’re back when the Nazis invaded Poland,” are invoked to describe Putin as a new Hitler, a butcher “trying to kill people everywhere in the world, just not Ukraine, Syria.” The discussion closes with thanks to Senator Lindsey Graham and a transition to the next segment: “Alright. Straight ahead.”

The speaker mentions that the draft of the agreement on the permanent neutrality and security guarantees of Ukraine was initialed by the head of the negotiation group from Kyiv. They emphasize that the agreement includes 18 articles on guarantees, with additional appendices covering armed forces and other matters. However, after the speaker's side withdrew their troops from Kyiv as promised, the Kyiv authorities discarded the agreement, as they usually do, without giving it any importance. The speaker tries to express this in a polite and intelligent manner. (Translated from Russian)

Speaker 0 suggests that the UN should help unite the situation, while expressing a negative view towards the EU. Speaker 1 agrees and mentions the need to prevent the Russians from sabotaging the situation. They discuss the current political dynamics and the possibility of success if they act quickly. Speaker 0 plans to work on Klitschko and suggests bringing in someone with international influence. They also mention the need to reach out to Yanukovych. Speaker 1 mentions that Biden is willing to help.

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

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.

Speaker 1: We have not gone to war with Russia. Russia is isolated, more than five years ago, a regional power threatening neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness. Ukraine had influence for decades since the Soviet breakup. We have considerable influence on our neighbors and generally don't need to invade to have cooperation. Russia's military action violates international law and signals less influence. They don't pose the number one national security threat to United States; I am concerned about a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan. Speaker 2: It is up to the Ukrainian people to decide how they organize themselves. The Ukrainian government is prepared to negotiate with Russia, and the international community supports a diplomatic process to de-escalate tensions, move Russian troops back from Ukraine's borders, and organize elections; the Ukrainian people will choose leadership. They will want a relationship with Europe and with Russia; this is not a zero-sum game.

Speaker 0 says the other side hates Putin and "I could be tougher than any human being you've ever seen. I'd be so tough, but you're never gonna get a deal that way," adding he's aligned with Europe and wants a deal. Speaker 1 argues four years of tough talk didn't stop Putin and "the path to peace and the path to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy." Speaker 2 recalls 2014, when "he occupied it" in Ukraine, says "we signed ceasefire... We signed the exchange of prisoners, but he didn't do it," and that Putin broke the ceasefire and killed people. The dialogue covers diplomacy versus confrontation, conscription, and Western aid: "We gave you the javelins" and "Obama gave you sheets." They discuss a ceasefire and warn against gambling with "World War three," noting "without us, you don't have the cards."

**Speaker 0:** It's an honor to have President Zelenskyy of Ukraine here. We've had a long and productive relationship, including navigating a negotiation that benefited both our countries and the world. We're committed to working together, especially in rare earth initiatives. I've also had positive discussions with President Putin and we're striving to end the war in Ukraine. The loss of life on both sides is tragic, and we want to redirect resources to rebuilding. My administration is actively engaging with Russia, unlike the previous one. If I were president earlier, this war wouldn't have happened. We've provided significant equipment to Ukraine, and their soldiers have shown incredible bravery. We aim to finalize a deal soon and look forward to signing an agreement. **Speaker 1:** Thank you for the invitation. I hope this document is a step towards real security guarantees for Ukraine. Continued American support is crucial. I want to discuss security guarantees, drone production, and air defense. We're ready to share our drone licenses and need air defense licenses in return to protect our nation. The support from Europe is welcome, but the United States' strength is vital. We also need help bringing back the 20,000 Ukrainian children stolen and relocated to Russia. I also wanted to show some images of Ukrainian prisoners and how they have been tortured.

The speakers are discussing negotiations with law enforcement to resolve a situation. Speaker 0 expresses their intention to end the circumstances in the best interest of all parties, but feels that law enforcement is not open to communication. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of communication and accuses law enforcement of demanding compliance. Speaker 2 clarifies that they have listened to the concerns and will deliver the message, but warns that enforcement action will be taken if individuals choose not to comply. Speaker 1 requests communication on a non-demanding level and urges law enforcement to engage in dialogue. They express a desire to work together and invite authorities to sit down with them.

Speaker 0 notes how a protest has suddenly morphed into a movement aiming to topple an elected government, calling it a revolution. The agenda they are waiting to advance is for President Kenukovic to return to Brussels and sign the association agreement (AA). They state: “We’re here from America.” They emphasize the importance of signing the AA, arguing it would put Ukraine on a path to a stable and predictable business environment that investors require. They assert, “The free world is with you. America is with you.” They refer to themselves as “I am a litigator.” They warn that “it would be a huge shame to see five years’ worth of work and preparation go to waste if the AA is not signed in the near future,” urging to “finish the job.” Speaker 1 mentions active involvement in what’s been happening in the UK. Speaker 0 expresses a view on government formation, saying, “I don’t think cleats should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.” They designate Yadze as “the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience,” and note they are not going to comment on private diplomatic conversations. Speaker 1 calls for the protest to stand peacefully against tyranny and asks the Ukrainian government to demonstrate strength without resorting to violence, emphasizing the importance of dealing with peaceful protest.

The speakers discuss the possibility of a two-state solution and the former president's involvement in Ukraine negotiations. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 about reconsidering conditions on Israel, to which Speaker 0 responds that they believe they can find a solution. Speaker 1 mentions different types of two-state solutions, including countries without their own military and states with limitations. Speaker 0 mentions that BBS opposes the two-state solution but doesn't specify what he is open to. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 asking if they discussed it that morning.

Speaker 0 states he wanted Ukraine, not Russia, to join NATO. He felt Ukraine needed to be in the EU and NATO. Speaker 1 brings up that Secretary of State Baker primed Gorbachev in the early nineties not to expand NATO. Speaker 0 responds that times change and the United States must be flexible and adjust to the times, which is why there is strong support for Speaker 1's country now. Speaker 1 says it doesn't matter what Baker primed Gorbachev with in the past, and that we have to see what is going on now.

I believe the US has a history of overthrowing governments and breaking promises. The speaker mentions various instances like bombing Serbia, overthrowing leaders in Ukraine, and disregarding the Minsk 2 agreement. They emphasize the need for both sides to come to a clear agreement to avoid further conflict, with the US committing to not overthrow governments and Russia agreeing not to expand. The speaker calls for transparency and adherence to treaties for peace to prevail.

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.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a cascade of developments around Ukraine, Russia, and Western policy. - Speaker 0 notes that Trump reportedly changed his stance on Tomahawk missiles, mentions a meeting with Zelensky where Zelensky supposedly urged acceptance of a Putin deal, and recalls that the Trump-Putin meeting was canceled. Speaker 1 responds that Russia has 100% made clear there will be no freeze and that for the war to end, Ukraine must leave all Russian territory. He says Tomahawk missiles were never on the table, that this was a pressure ploy by Trump to push Russia, and that it could have led to a thermonuclear war, which Putin reminded the US about in their conversations. - According to Speaker 1, Ukrainians will die, Russians will advance, Ukrainian economy will be destroyed, and Ukrainian energy infrastructure will be annihilated, leading to the collapse of Ukraine as a nation. Speaker 0 sketches a timeline: initial plans for a Putin-Trump-Zelensky sequence, Putin’s call after Trump hinted at Tomahawks, then a Zelensky meeting where Zelensky allegedly pressed Trump to accept a Putin deal, after which Tomahawks were no longer on the table and the Trump-Putin meeting was canceled. - Speaker 1 repeats: Tomahawks were never on the table; this was a pressure tactic. He explains the Russia-US exchange as frank, with Russia laying down the law; he asserts that the US would have faced a major escalation if Tomahawks had been supplied, because Tomahawks are nuclear-capable. He claims Ukraine would have been made a party to the conflict through US involvement. He adds that Russia will not accept a freeze because, constitutionally, Ukraine must leave all Russian territory, including Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Lugansk. - Speaker 0 asks why Tomahawks would matter, and Speaker 1 reiterates that Storm Shadow and Scout missiles are not nuclear capable, while Tomahawks would be, and contrasts this with Ukraine’s Flamingo drone, dismissing Flamingo as a propaganda tool. He describes Flamingo as a wooden drone designed to mimic a flock of birds and says it will be shot down and is not a serious threat; Ukraine’s drone capability is strong, with Ukrainians as the second-best fighters and drones in the world, while Russians are first in drone capability. - They discuss the trajectory of the war: Speaker 1 emphasizes that Russia’s advance is strategic, with drone warfare transforming the battlefield into piecemeal advances. He asserts Russia’s kill ratio of 36 Ukrainians to 1 Russian, and argues the West’s narrative of Russia suffering more is fantasy. He notes the West’s support for Ukraine drains Ukraine’s resources while Russia’s defense industry booms, and that Russia’s economy, energy, and sanctions resistance show resilience. - On economics, Speaker 1 claims the Russian economy is thriving; gas is cheap in Russia, Novosibirsk and Ekaterinburg are booming, and sanctions have not toppled Russia. He argues Europe’s sanctions are not beating Russia and that Russia’s ruble remains strong; he contrasts this with Western expectations of Russia’s collapse. - They discuss casualty figures and manpower. Speaker 0 asks for a definite casualty number; Speaker 1 cites Ukrainians dying daily (tens of thousands over time) and asserts Russians suffer hundreds daily on their worst day, noting Ukraine’s manpower shortages and Russia’s mobilization efforts: Russia conducted a one-time 300,000-mobilization; Ukraine has mobilized seven or eight times and relies on volunteers and external manpower, including Western units in some cases. He contends Russia’s total forces expanded to 1.5 million due to NATO expansion and ongoing operations. - On battlefield tactics, Speaker 1 explains Russia’s algorithm: three-man assault teams using drone support to seize bunkers held by larger Ukrainian forces, followed by reinforcement, all while drone warfare dominates. He asserts Ukraine’s drone capacity is strong, but Russia counters with its own drones and targeting of Ukrainian drone operators. - They debate why Russia would not freeze lines even if Ukraine yielded Donbas, Lugansk, and Donetsk. Speaker 1 insists those regions are Russian territory per referendum and constitutional absorption in September 2022, and argues that Ukraine cannot give up Donbas, which is Russia’s, and that a freeze would not be acceptable to Russia. He asserts that Moscow will not abandon these territories and that any idea of a freeze is a Western fantasy. - The discussion touches on the Minsk accords, the Istanbul talks, and the argument that Ukraine’s leadership initially pursued peace but later prepared for renewed conflict with NATO backing. Speaker 1 contends that Minsk was a sham agreed to buy time, and that Russia’s goal was to compel Ukraine to honor commitments to protect Russian speakers; Ukraine’s leadership is accused of pursuing war rather than peace after early negotiations. - They discuss Wagner and Prigozin’s role: Wagner provided a vehicle to surge capabilities into Lugansk and Donetsk; after September 2022 these troops were to be absorbed into the Russian military, but Prigozin continued operations in Bachmuth, recruited prisoners, and pressured for offensive allocations; this culminated in a confrontation with Shoigu and Gerasimov, and Wagner eventually faced disbandment pressure and a mobilization response. - In closing, Speaker 0 notes recent sanctions and Putin’s response condemning them as attempts to pressure Russia, while Speaker 1 reiterates that Russia seeks to end the war and rebuild relations with the US, but not under ongoing Ukraine conflict. He emphasizes that India and China will stand with Russia, citing strategic partnerships and the desire to maintain sovereign energy decisions, and predictsRussia will endure sanctions while seeking new buyers and alliances. - The exchange ends with Putin signaling that new sanctions will have costs for the EU, while Speaker 1 reiterates that Russia will adapt and maintain its strategic position, with China and India aligned with Russia rather than yielding to Western pressure.

The discussion centers on how US officials handle diplomacy publicly and privately, particularly in relation to Ukraine. Speaker 0 notes that US officials talk about world issues because that's part of diplomatic work, and mentions that the secretary met with the opposition and stopped by a meeting with the foreign minister. He says it’s up to the people of Ukraine, including officials from both sides, to determine the path forward, but indicates that there should be no surprise that discussions about events on the ground are taking place. Speaker 1 counters that this is more than discussions, describing it as “two top US officials that are on the ground discussing a plan that they have to broker a future government and bringing officials from the UN to kind of seal the deal.” They suggest this signals that the US is “midwifing the process,” not merely offering suggestions, and imply private diplomacy is aiming to shape a post-conflict outcome with UN involvement. Speaker 0 acknowledges that private diplomatic conversations happen and involve deliberations about what involvement the UN can have and what engagement should occur on the ground. He says such discussions shouldn’t be surprising and that there is a range of options under consideration, including private interagency process discussions and what is conveyed publicly as US policy. Speaker 2 challenges this by arguing it’s not honest to claim there is no opinion and that the process is entirely up to the people of Ukraine. They point to Egypt as a counterexample, asserting that there is a public stance that differs from private discussions. Speaker 0 distinguishes between private conversations within the interagency process and what is publicly conveyed as US policy. He asserts a responsibility to convey the government’s position while also noting that a range of options are being discussed. Speaker 1 presses the distinction further, asking what happens behind closed doors when private deals are discussed versus publicly stating that the decision lies with Ukrainians. They emphasize the perceived difference between privately “cooking up a deal” and publicly acknowledging Ukrainian decision-making. Speaker 0 concludes by saying they would disagree with Speaker 1, arguing that they are overstating and overqualifying a few minutes of a privately recorded phone call.

Speaker 1 stated he doesn't know what Tucker Carlson is saying about him being complicit in the war, and that Carlson should get a television network to say it so people will listen. Speaker 0 then asked if Speaker 1 had spoken to Zelensky before the bylaws.

Speaker 1 argues that the United States has repeatedly engaged in illegal military actions and regime changes in multiple countries, starting with the bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a European state, with the aim of breaking Serbia and installing Bondsteel, a large NATO base in the Balkans, under Clinton. They claim this was done without UN authority and described as a NATO mission. Speaker 1 continues, alleging that the US has subsequently waged war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, where, according to them, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton tasked the CIA with overthrowing Bashar al-Assad. They also claim NATO illegally bombed Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and that in Kyiv in February 2014 the US overthrew Yanukovych together with right-wing Ukrainian military forces, noting that the overthrow happened the day after EU representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych for early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand-down of both sides. They assert that the US supported the new government immediately afterward, despite that agreement and without addressing it as unconstitutional. Speaker 1 asserts that Russia, the United States, and the EU were parties to the 2015 Minsk two agreement, which was unanimously voted on by the UN Security Council, signed by the government of Ukraine, and guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. They contend that Minsk II was dismissed as a holding pattern by inside-US government circles, despite the UN Security Council approval. They claim Angela Merkel later said Minsk II was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine time to build its strength, countering the assertion that Minsk II was meant to end the war. The speaker emphasizes distrust of the United States government and calls for all sides to sit down publicly to agree on terms, with both the United States and Russia committing to specific boundaries, and for NATO not to enlarge, so that a written, global judgment can be made. Speaker 2 adds that there has been an ongoing effort to create an anti-Russian platform in Ukraine, describing it as an enclave, and accusing the US and its allies of lying about not expanding NATO multiple times. Speaker 3 states that President Putin sent a draft treaty asking NATO to promise no more enlargement as a precondition for not invading Ukraine, and notes that this draft was not signed.