reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The discussion questions what NATO will contribute, especially in terms of deploying French soldiers to Ukraine, and then pivots to the broader military capacity of Europe. The speaker asserts that only a handful of militaries today can fight large-scale ground combat, and in Europe that group consists of the United States, Russia, and Ukraine. There is no European army today capable of large-scale ground combat. The speaker notes that Germany claims it will build the largest ground army in Europe, but cites a recent poll showing that only 16% of German men would be willing to fight and die for their country if Germany were invaded, and speculates about the willingness to fight if Germany were to take the fight abroad to invade somebody else. Regarding Britain, the speaker describes the entire British military as something that could be placed in a large soccer stadium, with 30,000 unsold seats, implying a perceived weakness or limited capability. The overarching point is that Europe is “a lot of huffing and puffing, but they can't blow the house down.”

Speaker 0: The discussion reports that Russia has covertly tested three new weapon systems over the past twenty-eight days, with two of them described as complete game changers. These tests are said to be causing nerves inside NATO, and none of these three have been made public by President Putin, who typically announces such developments. One system, however, is not being kept secret. Speaker 0: According to the report, Russian President Putin just rolled out their most advanced hypersonic missiles to date. These missiles are described as "no one can shoot down"—at least in the view of the speaker—unless future assessments prove otherwise. The specific system named is the Orenshik Oreshnik hypersonic missiles. They are set for combat duty by the end of the year, and they are characterized as capable of extremely high speeds and long-range strikes. The deployment of these missiles is framed as something NATO will be watching very closely. The report suggests that European leaders are exhibiting a willingness to engage in war-related actions, with two particularly troubling points highlighted: the idea that they want to be part of the conflict and the accompanying casualties. It is claimed that they want to participate in the death and destruction in the European Union and in The UK. Speaker 0: The report specifically notes German Chancellor Mertz saying that they are ready to draft young men to war if they cannot reach their volunteer numbers, effectively suggesting compulsory service to fight Russia. Speaker 0: It is also stated that the UK is telling its populace to prepare to sacrifice their sons and daughters, and the speaker emphasizes that "Sons and daughters, colleagues, veterans will all have a part to play, to build, to serve, and if necessary, to fight." The speaker adds that more families will know what sacrifice for our nation means. Speaker 1: The accompanying commentary underscores the need to explain the changing threat and the necessity of staying ahead of it, reinforcing the idea that sacrifice and readiness are central to national defense in the current context.

It shows that the Ukrainian armed forces do not have these capabilities. They are not capable of large scale offensive operations. They are only trying to defend the frontline that they have. And the example that I cited is not the only time it happened. It is happening along the entire frontline. And it proves it is an evidence. And not only our experts believe that the western experts also believe that that the Ukrainian Armed Forces deficit of reserves and military capable units are staffed at 47, 48%, and that's almost the critical line.

Speaker 0 describes Zelensky as an American hero and contrasts his public image with the underlying narrative. He explains Zelensky was totally apolitical, an outsider with no government experience, a comedian, and the star of a planned TV show called Servant of the People. In the show, the main character creates a YouTube video that calls out oligarchs and corruption, becomes popular, and is drafted as a protest candidate who eventually becomes president. In real life, the TV show is supported by oligarch Kolomoisky, who owned the channel and did a large, nonstop promotional push to make it the number one show, including primetime slots, ads, and crossovers with the news. In 2018, a year before the show ended, Zelensky formed a political party named Servant of the People, the same title as the show, and secretly produced another season of the show. In April 2019, he announced his candidacy on Instagram, with no campaign, no rallies, no real platform, and he skipped presidential debates; his few early press conferences were poor. Kolomoisky’s channel provided Zelensky with endless airtime and favorable polls while attacking his enemies. Speaker 0 continues that US intelligence agencies, CIA and NSA, helped by funding democracy campaigns in Ukraine—reportedly around $5 billion—funneled through NGOs, with USAID embedding advisers in Zelensky’s organization to assist the campaign. On election day, Zelensky wins with 73% of the vote. Afterward, the war with Russia occurs, he declares martial law, and elections are ended. An election in 2024 is anticipated as the result of democracy money. He asserts Zelensky is an actor in a carefully designed television show—“a construct,” akin to Epstein—an created entity that works, and asks what Americans think about his popularity. Speaker 1 responds that Americans are disappointed by the ongoing war and deaths, noting that the war’s human cost is a major failure of promises from the Trump administration, who claimed he would resolve it in 24 hours. He adds that conscripting 60-year-old men and Americans and others going to fight are part of the situation. He states that the Ukraine narrative, and wars in general, are not organic: wars like this are driven by demands for primacy, control, and wealth, rather than being spontaneous. He reflects that Putin didn’t suddenly decide to invade; similarly, the broader pattern of power is not organic. He notes the Russian soldiers were told they would be welcomed and that they had dress uniforms, and compares to expectations in Iraq, where it was promised that Iraqis would welcome forces. He asks what the Ukraine situation is really about, and comments that human war reduces to a few centers of power like NATO, China, the Soviet bloc, and oil-producing countries, ultimately converging to two leaders in a room who must kill each other, as part of the decay of empire, with the U.S. maintaining about 760 overseas military bases.

Many people are being forced to choose between staying silent and risking their lives. There are those who want to take everyone, regardless of their background, not just soldiers but any man who fears avoiding war more than dying in it. The decision-makers in your country are protecting their own children.

The speaker describes the Ukrainian Armed Forces' training and motivation as layered. They have analyzed about a thousand enemy units over three years, including brigades like the 47th Mechanized Brigade, which has been reorganized multiple times after suffering losses. The speaker claims that 15-20% of Ukrainian forces are ideologically committed, while about half are fresh conscripts. They state that those mobilized are sent into combat, and prisoners report no way to avoid conscription, with refusal leading to imprisonment and assignment to assault units. One prisoner claimed he was working in a factory two weeks prior, received two weeks of training in Germany, and was then sent to the front. The speaker asserts that 10-15% of ideologically driven nationalists control armed groups and have no option to surrender, while the other 75% of Ukrainian citizens are hostages.

"This is a NATO army that's manned by Ukrainians and by foreign mercenaries." "There’s a large number of them apparently participating in this current offensive." "So they're an active participant in this conflict, and I don't think you'd have them in these numbers if there wasn't a green light given to them by their respective governments." "There's been an internationalization of this fight." "The army that's fighting Russia right now in Ukraine is no longer a Ukrainian army." "it's a NATO army... supported by NATO intelligence, by NATO communications, by NATO command staffs, by NATO logistics." "the international legion has always been in in this fight."

Russia is holding on due to its size and army. Putin is waging the war in Ukraine as a special military operation to avoid overheating Russian society, keeping it at a minimal background level. They are not fighting at full capacity; a real war with 2,000,000 drafted and 40% of the budget would have ended Ukraine in three months. Russia is satisfied with the war as a process because international isolation has ended. They have many friends, the ruble is strong, stores are full, and travel is open. Despite setbacks like Kharkov, Kyiv, Sumy, Chernihiv, Kherson, and the Prigashin revolt, they continue to fight with fewer troops. The speaker questions why Russia is fighting with 650,000 against a million Ukrainian troops, contrary to textbook ratios. They ask what system they live in and what they are fighting for, given that people are hiding from mobilization instead of fighting for the motherland.

The transcript presents an investigative-style alternation between eyewitness testimonies and narrative framing, asserting that Ukraine operates secret torture prisons run by the SBU (Ukrainian security service) where dissidents are beaten, waterboarded, electrocuted, subjected to gas-lit forms of torture, raped, and often murdered. It frames this as a systemic, state-sponsored program that predates the 2022 invasion and intensified with the Donbas conflict, accusing Western NGOs of collusion and portraying Ukraine as a totalitarian regime suppressing opposition. Key claims and testimonies include: - Mehdi Firvanovic, an engineer from Kharkov, describes becoming politically engaged after the Maidan and the Odessa trade union massacre, joining the Russian underground resistance in Kharkov. He was arrested by the SBU in August 2017 and sentenced to twelve years, later released in a prisoner exchange. He recounts elaborate torture in SBU facilities and details the treatment of a cellmate, Zverev, a 1955-born professional from the Ministry of Emergency Situations, who endured brutal beatings, water dousing, and “swallow technique” confinement. Zverev allegedly described being beaten with sticks, truncheons, and rubber hoses, having his body bruised, and facing death sentences read aloud and executions simulated with gunfire near the head. Mehdi also describes a method in which prisoners are bound, taped to a door, a helmet placed on, and noise cranked to 100–120 decibels to induce unconsciousness or death. - The narrative alleges that court testimony is the only admissible record of abuse and that torture occurring outside of court is not recorded. It asserts the existence of a deliberate collusion between the Ukrainian SBU and Western NGOs, claiming that Human Rights Watch representatives (including a Lithuanian named Vikentas Ladikis/Ladikis) were used by the SBU to interrogate prisoners, and that testimonies were transmitted through lawyers and prison mail. Mehdi claims to have alerted HRW to the collusion, and that Ladikis was removed about a month later. - The Mariupol center is highlighted as the most elaborate torture hub, with accounts from Olga Silevskoye, a former Mariupol resistance leader, who describes detentions at a gypsy settlement, the library at the Mariupol Airport, and SBU basements, where torture included suffocation, waterboarding, electric shocks, and a hostile environment overseen by Azov Battalion personnel. She recounts being held for 120 days, enduring electric shocks, and witnessing a rack, bloodstains, and a room with a stockpile of torture indicators. She describes “libraries” as covert torture sites, with victims coerced into implicating militia members or voters who supported the referendum. - Father Fiophan, an Orthodox priest, testifies to his arrest in 2015 and over a month of torture at Mariupol, including interrogations, electric shocks, spiritual trauma, and suffocation. - A survivor named Speaker 3 describes an interrogation regime at a temporary SBU facility, where he was forced to confront questions about drugs, subjected to electric shocks, batons, suffocation, and water torture, with a method involving placing a heavy bench to press the legs. - Another Donbas veteran, Alexander Matushin, explains prisoner exchanges that included civilians and soldiers and recounts a case of a girl who was gang-raped, and later assaulted with various objects when men were no longer able to rape her. - Russian accounts describe a broader pattern: civilians, Saint George ribbon wearers, and those with Russian contacts were targeted for torture, and torture chambers were found in liberated settlements; officials used informants to accuse individuals of supporting the referendum or having ties to Russia, leading to imprisonment and exploitation as a means to suppress dissent. - The 2022 conflict is said to have intensified the system, with claims of castration in some cases and the transfer of detainees to concentration camps in central or western Ukraine, intensifying cruel treatment and dehumanization. - The narrative concludes with a broad indictment: the testimonies illustrate a pattern of war crimes, political repression, and a regime that, in the view of the speakers, warrants Western scrutiny and raises concerns over foreign support for Ukraine. The call to action asks viewers to like and repost to raise awareness and “expose the truth” about Ukraine. Throughout, the speakers emphasize personal experience, firsthand testimony, and the alleged pervasiveness of secret detention facilities across multiple Ukrainian cities, including Mariupol, Kharkov, Kramatorsk, Pokrovsk, and others, with torture described in graphic detail.

Every one of us is responsible for the outcome of this war, and our actions matter. When I ask for just $5 to buy a vest and protect a Ukrainian life, I'm disappointed when there's no response. It makes me question humanity and whether we'll end up on the right side. If you have military experience, please encourage others to come and fight. We have units all over, Georgian, Crimean, Ukrainian, Territorial Defense, Foreign Legion. I put a 74-year-old in a unit, we have women fighters; any gender, any age, any skill level. If you want to fight, come see me, and I'll put you in a unit.

Russia occupied parts of Ukraine starting in 2014, and despite conversations and agreements, nothing stopped them. We signed ceasefire deals with Macron and Merkel, but Russia broke them, killing our people and not exchanging prisoners. I question what kind of diplomacy is being discussed when our country faces destruction. Everyone faces problems during war, but it seems like some don't fully grasp the situation. From the beginning, we've been strong and thankful, even when alone. However, we are told that we're not winning and should be more appreciative of the aid we've received. We want to stop the war, and if a ceasefire could be reached with guarantees, it would save lives.

We consider the Ukrainian prisoners of war as part of our people, aiming to convince them to join the Russian army. The Ukrainian oath pledges allegiance to the people of Ukraine, not to any specific leader or foreign power. We see that pro-American forces have tried to bend Ukraine to their will since 1991, dividing one nation into two. These are our people, and we want them on our side, so they can share in our victory and not feel ashamed. This idea has been around since 2014, with individuals joining our regular units. In 2022, we captured many people and conducted explanatory work, leading to the creation of a separate combat-ready unit. We aim for them to become the new elite of what remains of Ukraine. Starting with 30, we refined our methods and are ready to expand. Weeding out war criminals, we welcome those who honestly served and realized the truth. If given the go-ahead, we can enlist over 2,000 people who have expressed interest.

I went to Ukraine after the revolution, joining the battalion and later the M Division. It was different from the US, as various military organizations were active. Our battalion had people from Norway, Finland, and the US. Before being organized into different units, there were many Americans. I believe Zelensky fears us more than the Russians. He constantly talks about new weapons, but we haven't seen any. He allowed the arrest of defenders and sent us to die for an aluminum plant. While he treated us well and gave us citizenship and medals, when it came to social security cards, he wanted us to die for his own goals.

Speaker 0 questions whether they are at war and what the cause and resources are. They claim prolonging the war is not helping Ukraine or Ukrainian people seeking shelter in their own country. Speaker 1 responds that the parliament has been united in providing military, infrastructure, and financial support to the people of Ukraine. They state that the Ukrainian people clearly want to be part of a free Europe and not part of the Russian Federation, where there is no democracy or freedom of speech.

Concerns have been raised about volunteers coming to fight against the Russians, particularly regarding negative portrayals of Ukraine. A recent interview by Jake from Cardiff claimed poor conditions and misrepresentation, influencing other volunteers to refuse contracts, which harms morale. While it's difficult to control what individuals say in the media, there are many who genuinely want to help and fight alongside us. Efforts are being made to discourage thrill-seekers or those without military experience from coming, as they may not contribute positively. We will continue to address these issues as best as we can.

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.

Speaker 1 claims to have heard "behind the scenes" that war is coming and NATO wants to send 250,000 troops into Ukraine. Speaker 1 states that Ukraine is losing the war, with the death toll approaching 1.5 million, and that Ukraine has "flatlined" according to computer analysis. Speaker 1 believes the West is gearing up for war and deliberately crossing Putin's red lines in order to provoke him into attacking NATO, so they can claim he is the aggressor.

I went to Ukraine after the revolution, joining the battalion and later the M Division. It was different from the US, as various military organizations were active. Our battalion had people from different countries, including Americans. I believe Zelensky fears us more than the Russians. He constantly talks about new weapons, but we haven't seen any. He allowed the arrest of defenders and sent us to die for an aluminum plant. While he treated us well and gave us citizenship and medals, when it came to social security cards, he showed he wants us to die. I shared this thought with some members of our squad. He sent us to die for his own purposes.

The brigade was left with only 20% of its members, not allowed to take them. People are being grabbed off the streets, farmers are taken and thrown to the front lines. There's no gear, no ammunition, no weapons. My will was broken. My comrades and I believe that if we had gone from Rusnea to Kyiv, all of this would have ended long ago.

President Zelensky urged Western supporters of Ukraine to join the fight against the Russian army due to Ukraine's disadvantage in population size. He called for assistance in the form of arms and manpower, emphasizing the importance of continuously sending soldiers to the front lines. However, despite repeated pleas, only a few individuals from the West chose to participate in the war effort. The majority opted not to get involved, potentially hindering the Ukrainian military and US war policy in Ukraine.

The transcript alleges that there are preparations to fly Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and much of his inner circle to Israel, where they would have immunity against extradition for criminal proceedings, and that this is what they would need after completing duties in Ukraine. The speaker asserts that Zelensky and his circle are “on … one foot right now in Ukraine and the other foot really in the door of the aircraft to fly them out.” The claim is made that people do not realize how weak and fragile the Ukrainian government is. Additionally, the speaker reports receiving information from Eastern Europe about people coming out of basements and homes in Prokhorst (Prokhorovka? Prokhorst is presented as a location), telling the Russians, “thank god. Let’s get this over with,” and expressing a wish for the war to end. The transcript notes that, according to the speaker, those in Eastern Ukraine and much of the population in the West desperately want an end to the war, and they realize it will only end with one outcome: “the elimination of Zelenskyy and his regime.” The statements imply a belief that increasing numbers of people are regretting the continuation of the conflict and favor a conclusion that involves removing Zelenskyy and his government.

Dmitry Sims junior hosts lieutenant general Abty Alaudinov, hero of Russia, hero of the Chechen Republic, hero of the Donetsk People’s Republic, commander of the Akhmet Special Forces, and deputy head of the main military political directorate of the Russian Ministry of Defense. The conversation centers on the current phase of the conflict, Russia’s strategy, the role of Western support, and comparisons with Israeli actions in Gaza and other theaters. Key points and claims: - Russia’s combat capability and strategy - Alaudinov states that “overall, all troops of the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Defense are engaged in active offensive operations across all sectors where we’re positioned,” with the most intense fighting around Pokrovsk, seen as the key point to break through to operational space. He notes progress in sectors where the Ahmad (Akhmet) special forces operate and emphasizes a broader offensive plan while maintaining an “active defense” to engage the entire front line and stretch the enemy’s resources. - He asserts that “only Russia is advancing” along the 1,000-kilometer line of contact and attributes slower offensive tempo to preserving personnel and avoiding a sharp breakthrough that could trigger NATO involvement. He argues the primary damage comes from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) on both sides, and contends a rapid thrust would yield enormous losses. - Perceived signs of enemy strain - The speaker describes Ukraine as gradually crumbling under pressure, with Pokrovsk, Kupiansk, and the surrounding agglomeration “gradually falling apart.” He claims Russia liberates one or two settlements daily and that NATO support—drones and equipment—has not changed the overall dynamics; Ukraine cannot hold the front despite the influx of foreign weapons. - Western/NATO support - Alaudinov asserts that NATO testing is ongoing on Ukraine with drones, weapons, electronic warfare, etc., and that Trump’s shifting rhetoric does not reduce the flow of weapons or support. He contends that American support persists even as political statements change, and he notes deep American-NATO involvement via think tanks, satellites, and arms supplies that reach the front. - Drones and the changing nature of war - He emphasizes drones as the central element of modern warfare, while not negating the continued relevance of artillery and tanks. He argues: “a tank worth millions of dollars can be destroyed by a drone that costs $500,” and stresses the need to compete economically in war, deploying cheaper, effective unmanned systems to exhaust the enemy’s resources. - He claims Russia has a layered drone system for deep reconnaissance and strike with various warhead levels, ranges, and maneuverability, enabling operations from closest to farthest sectors and allowing “all targets” to be hit today. He asserts Russia is ahead of NATO in unmanned aviation. - Mobilization and tactics - Refuting Western depictions of “meat assaults,” he notes Russia conducted only one mobilization (300,000) and has continued advancing, while Ukraine has mobilized for years and still struggles. He attributes Ukraine’s resilience to nationalist formations behind mobilized troops, and he suggests that without NATO support, Ukraine would not sustain the front for many days. - Mercenaries and comparisons to Israeli actions - He characterizes Western mercenaries as having arrived with false expectations and being killed off in large numbers; Ukrainians are described as having strong spirit, but NATO soldiers lack endurance in the same way. Israeli mercenaries are described as capable in some contexts but not decisive against Russia. - On Gaza and the Israeli army, Alaudinov accuses Israel of “a fascist state” with tactics that spare no one, arguing Russia fights only those who fight with weapons and does not target women, children, or elders. He contrasts this with alleged Israeli actions in Gaza, saying Israel has no tactics and destroys civilians. - Nuclear considerations and doctrine - He asserts Russia is a nuclear power with substantial combat experience and advances in missiles like Zircon that could sink carriers, arguing NATO did not account for Russia’s capabilities when initiating the conflict. He presents a broader critique of Western policy and the so-called “deep state,” alleging far-reaching political dynamics involving Israel, Epstein, and compromise among Western leadership. - Closing perspective - The discussion closes with the host thanking Alaudinov for the detailed analysis of the operation and broader geopolitical commentary, including views on Israel, Gaza, Iran, and U.S. roles.

"They even told us, like, we are going to give you guns, and you're gonna fight for Ukraine." "We are not Ukrainian. We are black." "If we fight for Ukraine, we are going to to die first because we are black." "The guards there said that only women and children would be allowed to board the trains that were headed west, and that the people of color were barred from getting onto that train." "It was clear. It was clear because we are black." "That's why they were acting that way. We are black people in a white country." "There have been reports of discrimination that have unfolded in the midst of this mass exodus from Ukraine." "If you appeared to be from Africa, that you were subjected to, clear discrimination." "There were incidents where people from Africa have been harassed by right wing organizations." "The police had to show up, to near one of the border crossings, to allay the situation." "Some of them are being faced ugly discrimination as they try to find safety."

Speaker 0: Slavic force, too. Speaker 1: Officers, tonight will be the toughest night for me. Speaker 0: They took some today, no one took them, not even you, you were not in the Ukrainian army this morning, you are a local resident, I understand, Don is very professional, you are from Russia, can I ask you about the British? Where did they get it, comrade? They just sell British stuff in the store. Speaker 1: In the store. Speaker 0: The city now. Speaker 1: But they also have to switch to our side. They came here, and we offer them bread and everything so that our people are happy. Speaker 0: So, you think they will switch sides too? Speaker 1: They don't give weapons, they just come here. They can take their weapons and go back to their units. Those who want to stay can stay because what's the point of fighting? They won't be here anymore. Are you from Crimea? Speaker 0: Yes, and all your guys? Speaker 1: No, not all the guys from Crimea are here. There are only a few people here. The rest are in Petrovsky. 100 people, maybe. Speaker 0: Where did you come from in Crimea? You participated, of course, in the people's column surrendering. Speaker 2: There was no surrender. She will die there herself. Speaker 0: Military vehicles. Speaker 2: Initially, they said that we were going to the border to protect the integrity of the comparison. Speaker 3: We came against the troops, against the conduct of troops, to protect the territory. There are people here, no old ladies. If we hadn't gone to the exercises, they wouldn't have loaded the guns. Now they sit with loaded guns. What does it mean? Speaker 2: Probably, we are for it. Speaker 0: Of course. Speaker 2: Specifically, what is it for? No, we don't have it. Speaker 0: And you also came to stop, to...

The speaker discusses the dire situation in their unit, which is on the verge of disbandment with only 14 members remaining. They express uncertainty about the new command structure and criticize the perception of Russians as European, stating that Russians have a different culture and are Asian. They condemn the actions of Russian leaders and emphasize the need to win the information war against Russia. The speaker also mentions their suspension from their position due to political reasons and expresses frustration with corruption and the lack of focus on the war and the people of Ukraine. The conversation ends with the speaker being offered a potential role as a deputy in the upcoming elections.