reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speakers discuss the involvement of Klitschko in the government and the need to keep moderate Democrats together. They agree that Klitschko should stay out and focus on his political work, while Yatsenyuk should be the main figure with support from Taniybook. They plan to set up a call with Klitschko to discuss this. They also mention a meeting with the big three and the possibility of a three-way conversation. They discuss the UN's involvement and the need to stick together against Russian interference. They mention concerns about Russian forces gaining control of Ukrainian biological research facilities. They believe any biological or chemical attack in Ukraine would be orchestrated by the Russians.

The speakers discuss the involvement of Klitschko in the government and the need to keep moderate Democrats together. They agree that Klitschko should stay out and focus on his political work. They also mention the importance of Yats having regular communication with Klitschko and Tani book. They discuss setting up a call with Klitschko as the next step. They mention a meeting with the big three and the possibility of a 3 plus 1 or 3 plus 2 conversation. They mention the UN's involvement in the situation and express the desire for the UN to help resolve the situation, disregarding the EU.

The speakers discuss the role of Klitschko in the government and the need to keep the moderate Democrats united. Speaker 0 believes Klitschko should not join the government, while Speaker 1 agrees and suggests that Klitschko should focus on his political work outside the government. They also mention the importance of Yatsenyuk, who has the necessary experience, and suggest regular communication with him and Tony Book. Speaker 0 suggests setting up a call with Klitschko, but Speaker 1 believes Klitschko may take time to join the meeting with the others. They agree that reaching out to Klitschko directly would help manage the dynamics and allow for faster progress.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss Klitschko piece as complicated electron, especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister. '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 debate keeping moderate Democrats together, with Yadze or Yatzenyuk as governing figure; 'He's the guy you know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tani Book on the outside.' 'Klitschko going in, he's gonna be at that level working for Yatzenyuk.' They consider reaching out to Klitschko directly to move fast and manage personality among the three, and to set up a 'three plus one conversation or three plus two with you.' Jeff Feltman mentions Robert Seri and that Seri could come in Monday or Tuesday with Ban Ki Moon's agreement; 'fuck the EU' as aim. They worry Russians will torpedo; plan outreach to Yanukovych; Biden's involvement: 'Biden's willing.'

The speakers discuss the involvement of Klitschko, Yatsenyuk ("Yat"), and Tani Book in forming a government. One speaker believes Klitschko should remain outside the government to do his "political homework," while Yatsenyuk should lead with Klitschko and Tani Book offering support. They plan a call with Klitschko to manage personalities and move quickly. The speakers mention UN involvement, with Robert Seri potentially coming in to help "glue this thing" together, and express a dismissive attitude towards the EU. They anticipate Russian interference and the need for international support. Biden is willing to offer encouragement ("attaboy") to help solidify the agreement.

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.

US officials engage in discussions about global issues, particularly in Ukraine, where the Secretary met with opposition leaders and the foreign minister. While these discussions involve potential UN involvement, it's essential to recognize the distinction between private diplomatic conversations and public statements. The US maintains that the future of Ukraine is ultimately for its people to decide. However, there are concerns about the disparity between private negotiations and public messaging, suggesting that the US may be more involved in shaping outcomes than it admits. This raises questions about the nature of diplomatic discussions and the transparency of US intentions.

Let's move quickly and try to get the jelly setup going. I'll focus on Klitschko. We should aim to get someone with an international profile to support this. We also need to consider reaching out to Yanukovych, but let's hold off until tomorrow to see how things develop. Regarding that, Sullivan got back to me saying we need Biden involved. I suggested tomorrow would be good for encouragement and to solidify the details. Biden is on board.

We're discussing Victoria Nuland, the top US diplomat for Europe, and her phone call with US Ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt. Nuland highlights the importance of international support, mentioning that both Seri and Ban Ki Moon have agreed to assist Ukraine. Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the US has invested over $5 billion to help build democratic institutions and promote civic participation, essential for Ukraine's European aspirations. The American public supports Ukraine's resistance, as protesters seek closer ties to Europe rather than Russia. The US has historically been concerned about the potential alliance between Germany and Russia, viewing it as a significant threat due to their combined resources and capabilities.

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 1 believes Klitschko's role is crucial, suggesting a call to discuss his position. Speaker 0 opposes Klitschko joining the government, preferring Yatsenyuk to lead with Klitsch and Tanibok outside. They plan a call with Klitschko. Yatsenyuk will propose a meeting with the "big 3" and UN involvement to unite the factions.

The conversation involves Victoria Nuland, a top US diplomat for Europe, and US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt. They discussed UN involvement to "glue" the situation, along with the EU. Since 1991, the US has invested over $5 billion in Ukraine to build democratic skills and institutions, promote civic participation and good governance, and help Ukraine achieve its European aspirations. The US is interested in Ukraine because protesters want closer ties to Europe, not Russia. The US has historically fought to prevent a relationship between Germany and Russia, fearing their combined power. The US fears German technology and capital combined with Russian natural resources and manpower.

We are involved in Ukraine, supporting democracy. Negotiating restructuring the government for opposition voices. Truce broken by sniper shooting, suspected to be from new coalition. Concerns about lack of investigation into sniper attacks on both sides.

US officials are discussing events in Ukraine, including brokering a future government with UN involvement. Private diplomatic conversations are common, but public statements reflect US government positions. There are differing opinions on including certain individuals in the government. Discussions are ongoing about the best approach moving forward.

Gilbert Doktorov and the host discuss the evolving, multi-layered negotiations surrounding the Ukraine war, stressing that talks involve more than Ukraine and Russia, extending to US-Russia dynamics and broader European and global interests. - They note that trilateral talks among Ukraine, Russia, and the US have begun, with the first phase completed. The conversation emphasizes that the US-Russia dimension is crucial because the conflict is viewed as a proxy war between NATO and Russia, and that “the US toppled the government in Ukraine” with intelligence support, military planning, weapons, and targets coordinated through backchannels. The implication is that any durable settlement would require some deal between the US and Russia to de-escalate the proxy confrontation. - On US-Russia relations, Speaker 1 identifies several dimensions: renewal or non-renewal of New START, and the functioning of embassies, as negative signs, but points to positive changes elsewhere. He highlights Kislyov’s Sunday night program remarks, noting Russia’s proposal to contribute $1,000,000,000 to become a permanent board member using frozen US assets (total US assets frozen around $5 billion in equivalent value). He mentions that Trump was asked about using frozen assets and reportedly declined, but the implication is that Moscow views this as a potential lever. Kislyov also notes that the additional $4,000,000,000 in frozen assets would be allocated to reconstruction in Palestine, and that Russia’s participation on the board would influence regional diplomacy, including with Palestinians and Israelis. - The discussion suggests that the absence of official diplomacy (e.g., embassies) does not necessarily indicate a lack of progress, arguing that backchannels between Putin and Trump are functioning well. The speakers discuss the broader context of Russia’s strategic posture, including alleged advancements in space-based and other new military capabilities that are not fully captured by New START, and the sense from Moscow that the US is preparing a space-based missile system that would enable first strikes, a point the Russians emphasize in public discourse. - On Ukraine, Zelensky’s stance is described as uncompromising: Ukraine will not cede territory and will demand security guarantees, which could undermine a neutral status. The dialogue suggests Zelensky is using a posture of firmness to buy time for negotiations, with Ukrainian leadership potentially exchanging assurances for a broader settlement that could include regime change and financial support for reconstruction. - The potential for compromise is discussed in terms of strategic timing and leverage. The Russians’ primary interest is regime change, and there could be an understanding with Trump about a democratic replacement in Ukraine, possibly replacing Zelensky with a pro-Russian administration under conditions tied to substantial monetary reparations for reconstruction. The timing and mechanism, including potential referenda or buyouts, are considered critical elements that could determine the settlement’s architecture. - The European role is analyzed as increasingly fraught. Europe’s diplomatic engagement has been limited, but Moscow is open to leveraging European assets in a peace process. Lavrov’s stated position that talks with Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission leadership are unlikely, and the broader fragmentation within Europe (France, Germany, Finland, the EU leadership) are highlighted as complicating factors. There is speculation about European figures who could bridge talks, such as Finland’s Stubb, though there is skepticism about Kalas’s leadership within the EU. - The speakers speculate that Davos and Trump’s stance have reshaped European perceptions of US leadership, with European elites increasingly questioning the reliability of US-backed security guarantees. The conversation closes with an expectation that the year 2025 will be dominated by Trump as a central variable in resolving global issues, and that Moscow remains optimistic about achieving a settlement with Washington while signaling a tougher stance toward Ukraine if needed. Overall, the discussion portrays a complex, interwoven set of negotiations across US-Russia, Ukraine-Russia, and European dynamics, with backchannels, asset controls, potential regime-change considerations, and timing as key levers for reaching any settlement.

We, as US officials and diplomats, engage in discussions on global issues, especially those we're closely involved in. These private diplomatic conversations happen all the time and include discussions about potential UN involvement. It shouldn't be a surprise that we discuss these things. There's a difference between private discussions within the interagency process and what we convey publicly as the US government. Publicly, we convey our official position. Saying privately that we're "cooking up a deal" while publicly stating it's up to Ukrainians to decide presents two different positions. However, these internal discussions are a normal part of diplomacy. I disagree with the characterization of a "deal" based on a few minutes from a private phone call; it's an overstatement.

Speaker 1 believes "we're in play," but Klitschko is a complication, especially with his Deputy Prime Minister announcement. Speaker 0 agrees Klitschko shouldn't be in the government, suggesting he stay out and focus on political work. Speaker 0 believes Yatseniuk has the necessary experience and needs Klitschko and TinyBook on the outside, communicating with him regularly. Speaker 1 will reach out to Klitschko to talk before or after their meeting. Speaker 0 mentions that Jeff Feldman secured UN involvement with Robert Seri and Ban Ki Moon agreeing Seri could come in Monday or Tuesday to "help glue this thing and fuck the EU." Speaker 1 agrees on the need to "make it stick together" due to potential Russian interference. Speaker 1 will work on Klitschko and suggests international outreach to midwife the situation, along with regrouping on Yanukovych outreach. Speaker 0 adds that Biden is willing to give an "attaboy" tomorrow.

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 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the role of Klitschko in the government, with Speaker 1 arguing against him joining, believing Yatseniuk is better suited for leadership with Klitschko and Tani Book on the outside. Speaker 1 thinks Yatseniuk needs to be talking to Klitschko and Tani Book four times a week. Speaker 1 mentions Seri and Blanquemun agreeing that Seri could come in Monday or Tuesday to help glue things together, adding "fuck the EU." Speaker 2 claims the US government cannot control Foboda and the right sector, stating these armed groups see the crisis as an opportunity to reshape Ukraine. The speaker references a video of right sector leader Alexander Musichko brandishing an AK 47 in parliament.

US officials are involved in discussions regarding Ukraine, with plans to broker a future government. Private diplomatic conversations are common, including talks about UN involvement. There is a disagreement over public versus private statements on US involvement in Ukraine. Additionally, there are discussions about the roles of key political figures like Klitschko in the government. The focus is on maintaining unity among moderate Democrats and strategizing for the future. Plans for further conversations and meetings are being considered.

We're discussing a phone call between Victoria Nuland, the top US diplomat for Europe, and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt. They talk about getting Sari to come in on Monday or Tuesday with the help of the UN and EU. The United States has supported Ukraine since its independence in 1991, investing over $5 billion to promote democracy, good governance, and civic participation. Americans support Ukrainian protesters who want closer ties to Europe. The United States has always been concerned about the alliance between Germany and Russia, as it poses a threat. The combination of German technology and capital with Russian resources and manpower has historically worried the US.

Here is a concise transcript of the video: **Speaker 0:** Klitschko's situation is complicated, especially with his new deputy prime minister role. I think Yatseniuk is the right person with economic and governing experience, and he needs Klitschko and Tani Book on the outside, advising him. Klitschko working under Yatseniuk won't work. **Speaker 1:** Let's set up a call with Klitschko. Reaching out to him directly helps manage the personalities involved and allows us to move quickly. **Speaker 0:** Jeff Feltman mentioned Robert Seri as the new UN guy who could come in to help. **Speaker 1:** We need to make this stick, especially with potential Russian interference. Let me work on Klitschko, and we need someone with an international presence to help. We can regroup on outreach to Yanukovych tomorrow. **Speaker 0:** Sullivan says Biden is willing to give an "attaboy" tomorrow to help things stick.

I met with the opposition and the foreign minister this weekend. It's up to the Ukrainian people to decide the path forward, but discussions are happening. These are more than discussions. Top US officials are on the ground, discussing a plan to broker a future government, involving the UN. The US is midwifing the process. These are private diplomatic conversations where we discuss UN involvement. It's dishonest to say we don't have an opinion. There's a difference between private discussions and our public position. As diplomats, we discuss a range of options. Saying privately you're cooking up a deal, then saying publicly it's up to Ukrainians, those are different positions. Diplomatic discussions are sensitive, but those are totally different positions. You're overstating a private phone call.

US officials are discussing global issues, including events in Ukraine. They have met with the opposition and the foreign minister, but the path forward is up to the people of Ukraine. However, it is not surprising that discussions are happening. There are claims that the US is actively involved in brokering a future government and bringing in UN officials. The US government acknowledges private diplomatic conversations but also has a responsibility to convey its position publicly. There is a difference between private discussions and public statements. Some argue that if the US is privately working on a deal while publicly stating that it is up to Ukrainians to decide, it is contradictory. However, others believe that the private conversation was just a couple of minutes and should not be overstated.

The speakers discuss the role of Klitschko in the government and the need to keep moderate Democrats together. Speaker 0 believes Klitschko should not go into the government, while Speaker 1 agrees and suggests Klitschko should stay out and focus on his political work. They also mention the importance of Yats, who has economic and governing experience, and the need for him to communicate with Klitschko and Tani book regularly. Speaker 0 suggests setting up a call with Klitschko, but Speaker 1 believes Klitschko may take time to show up for a meeting. They agree that reaching out to Klitschko directly would help manage the dynamics among the three individuals.