TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Glenn (Speaker 0) argues that the idea Russia started the war merely for territory is nonsense and that NATO’s involvement is not genuinely helping Ukraine; he says “This is NATO’s war. Nothing we’re doing is actually helping Ukraine. They’re an instrument. They’re a tool.” He contends the conflict began as a failure to build a common European security architecture, and that Russian demands are high, making a peace settlement unlikely. He defines victory in a war of attrition as exhausting the adversary first, suggesting Russia would prefer a neutral Ukraine without NATO, and that if Ukraine remains in NATO orbit, Russia would rather take Odessa. He asserts that NATO expansion revived Cold War logic and that Ukraine’s neutrality was the original Russian objective. He argues that Ukraine’s current war losses and economic strain indicate Russia’s advantage, and claims NATO support has not truly helped Ukraine, noting that in his view NATO and Western actions have been a driver of the conflict, including claims about Istanbul, Minsk, and the 2014 coup. Jonathan (Speaker 1) pushes back on several points. He says the war is not solely about territory and disputes Glenn’s claim that NATO’s role is responsible for the conflict. He emphasizes that if this were simply about NATO, NATO could have destroyed Russia by arming Ukraine more aggressively, yet “they could have done it so much more, effectively,” implying NATO has not fully acted. He sees both sides as losing in a prolonged attritional battle and notes that neither side has achieved decisive victory due to limits on production, economies, and allied support. He argues the conflict is about more than territory and rejects the idea that NATO guarantees Ukraine’s security; he questions whether NATO would credibly defend an attacked ally in Europe. He says the Maidan movement in 2014 was organic and not fully orchestrated by the US, though he concedes US influence existed. He disputes Glenn’s claims about Western NGOs and American orchestration, and he highlights that many Ukrainians initially favored non-NATO paths, with polls showing limited appetite for NATO membership before 2014. He also contends that Ukraine’s future lies beyond mere territorial concessions, pointing to the EU’s role and the broader security order, and he warns that negotiations with a “mafia cabal” running Moscow are unlikely to yield lasting peace, arguing that Putin’s governance frames negotiations as instrumental and potentially destabilizing. Speaker 2 (moderator) asks for reactions to ongoing developments, including Trump and Kushner’s involvement, Putin’s aides’ statements about known positions and lack of progress, and questions about what Russia truly seeks: Donbas control or preventing Ukraine from joining NATO. The participants discuss definitions of “winning” in a war of attrition, the role and credibility of NATO guarantees, and the strategic importance of neutrality versus alliance membership. They debate whether Russia values a neutral Ukraine with security guarantees or insists on broader concessions, and whether Ukraine could ever be secure without a credible deterrent. Glenn asserts that there was never credible deterrence in Ukraine prior to 2014, while Jonathan argues that NATO’s efficacy and unity are questionable, with concerns about member states’ commitments and the real level of Western support. On NATO and security guarantees, Glenn maintains that true security for Ukraine would come from a non-NATO arrangement that prevents Ukraine from becoming a future proxy battleground, suggesting limited, carefully designed guarantees could be acceptable, but that any path toward NATO-like intrusion would be unacceptable. Jonathan says NATO is not delivering credible security and emphasizes that EU membership and security arrangements also factor into Russia’s calculations, with the European Union potentially offering security commitments if Ukraine joined, though that possibility remains contentious for Moscow. They discuss the costs of war, civilian impact, and the global economic ripple effects, including potential impacts on food prices and shipping routes if Russia responds to Ukrainian actions against its maritime traffic. Towards the end, they forecast no immediate peace and emphasize unpredictability due to Western political shifts, central bank asset issues, and external actors like China, North Korea, and Trump’s stance. Glenn predicts Ukraine’s military unraveling and a weakening economy, while Jonathan stresses that a peace deal remains unlikely under current leadership, with outcomes dependent on Western resolve and external support. The conversation closes with a sense that the next months will be dangerous and uncertain, with the broader international order potentially shifting as the conflict persists.

The speaker claims neocons are pushing to send missiles into Russia, risking nuclear war, driven by a world-dominating mentality. They allege the U.S. is perceived as a "rabid dog" but uses media to promote a "noble lie" of exceptionalism. In 1948, the U.S. allegedly hired Nikola Lebed, a right-hand man of Ukrainian fascist Stepan Bandera, for sabotage and propaganda in Soviet Ukraine. After the Soviet Union's collapse, Wall Street asset-stripped Russia, creating an oligarchy and impoverishing the population. The speaker contrasts Moscow in 1995 with its transformation by 2015 under Vladimir Putin, who restored Russia's sovereignty, angering Wall Street and Washington. Putin's 2006 Munich speech warned against NATO expansion. The speaker claims the U.S. orchestrated the overthrow of Yanukovych in Ukraine for choosing a Russian economic package, leading to a civil war against Russian speakers. Angela Merkel admitted the Minsk Accord was a ploy to arm Ukraine. Russia proposed treaties in 2021 for a new European security architecture, which were rejected. The speaker asserts the U.S. wanted the invasion to weaken Russia via economic, information, and proxy wars, but is losing. They claim the history is being excised and the Russian viewpoint suppressed to maintain the "noble lie" of democracy.

I was the first to advocate for a reasonable peace deal in Ukraine. Many neocons are now starting to agree, except for Nikki Haley and Joe Biden who still support the war. Neither of them can even name three provinces in Eastern Ukraine that they want to send our troops to fight for. It's important to reject the myth that foreign policy experience is gained by having a short stint at the UN and then making millions. It takes an outsider to see the truth. The puppet managers, the donors, are the ones pulling the strings.

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

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

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

Speaker 1 hopes for a Trump–Putin meeting but notes, "As usual, we have no public information or public explanation of anything from the White House." He adds, "we, live in, not in a democracy, but in an imperium right now, one person rule." Russia's terms are laid out: "Russia has put on the table for years, actually, its terms for coming to an end of this war. Basically, Russia has said, that it has national security concerns. The expansion of NATO was the cause of the war in Ukraine. The US led coup in February 2014 was the provocation that led onward to war in Ukraine." He contends, "If Trump comes to this meeting with the honesty and says, yes, The United States should stop provoking Russia, stop trying to weaken Russia, stop trying to divide Russia, then there could be peace." Conversely, "If the president comes as he is want to do with demands. You must stop this and that. There will not be peace." "The problem is we have a intemperate president absolutely, without any kind of stability who does not speak to the public, and who does not engage in any kind of political deliberation. He just makes orders."

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify and preserve the core causation chain from 1990 to the present. - Retain all direct claims about NATO expansion, treaties, regime changes, and key US actions. - Highlight unique or surprising elements (intercepted calls, personal connections, blunt quotes). - Exclude repetition, filler, and off-topic discussions. - Do not judge the claims; present them as stated, without added qualifiers. - Translate any non-English nuances into concise English where needed. - Aim for 395–494 words. According to the speaker, the Ukraine war is not a Putin-initiated attack as framed by common narratives, but a long sequence beginning in 1990. James Baker (Secretary of State) told Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move eastward if Germany unified; Gorbachev agreed. The speaker asserts the US then “cheated” with a 1994 Clinton plan to expand NATO to Ukraine, arguing that neoconservatives took power and NATO enlargement began in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Russia initially cared little, seeing no direct border threat beyond Kaliningrad, and NATO’s bombing of Belgrade in 1999 aggravated Moscow. Putin’s leadership is described as initially pro-European; he even considered joining NATO when a mutually respectful relationship existed. After 9/11, Russia supported the US in counterterrorism, but two decisive later actions altered it. In 2002 the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which the speaker says triggered US missile deployments in Eastern Europe—Aegis systems—prompting Russia to fear a decapitation strike from missiles near Moscow. He claims the US then invaded Iraq in 2003 on phony pretenses. In 2004–2005 a “soft regime change operation” in Ukraine (the first color revolution) installed leaders connected to US interests; the speaker recalls advising Ukraine’s government in the early 1990s and knows Yushchenko personally. Yanukovych won Ukraine’s 2009 election and pursued neutrality; the US pressed NATO expansion despite Ukrainian public preference for neutrality amid ethnic divides. On 22 February 2014, the US actively participated in overthrowing Yanukovych, with a leaked call between Victoria Nuland and Jeffrey Pyatt discussing a preferred next government (names like Yatsenyuk/Yats, and influence from Biden) and vowing Western support; the speaker asserts the Americans told Yanukovych to fight on, promising “we’ve got your back” but “we don’t have your front,” pushing Ukraine into front lines and contributing to a high death toll—“six hundred thousand deaths now of Ukrainians since Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell them to be brave.” The speaker contends the war is misrepresented as a madman invading Europe and criticizes it as “bogus, fake history” and a PR narrative by the US government; he claims NYT suppressed his commentary and argues the US ignores prudence in favor of open-ended enlargement. He cautions against pursuing China and Taiwan, warning about nuclear risk if a power challenges the US. He notes Putin’s 2021 security proposal to bar NATO enlargement, the White House’s rejection of negotiations, and NATO’s “open door” stance, which he decries as unstable. The narrative concludes with a focus on preventing further escalation and avoiding a nuclear confrontation.

Jeffrey Sachs urges peace and denounces Western leaders as warmongers, arguing the war in Ukraine began eleven years ago when the United States backed a violent coup to overthrow Viktor Yanukovych because Yanukovych sought neutrality while the US sought NATO enlargement toward Russia. He recalls that in February 1990 Germany and the United States promised Gorbachev NATO would not move eastward, and claims they cheated to dominate Russia. After the coup, Minsk II (2015) envisaged autonomy for Eastern Ukraine with Germany and France as guarantors; the US and Germany allegedly ignored this, backing Ukraine against autonomy. In March 2022 negotiations ended the war, but the US urged Ukraine to fight on and reject neutrality, with Germany, France, and the UK backing that. He advocates Ukraine neutrality, diplomacy, and collective security, noting over a million dead and urging peace now.

Let me just say that all the major conflicts can be ended straightforwardly. The Ukraine war the causes of the Ukraine war is NATO enlargement, US coup, CIA operations all over Ukraine, even the New York Times reported that one a couple of months ago. We've got to stop being in Russia's face. They know all of it. They know who paid for the Maidan demonstrators. They've got everything. We've got to stop the provocations. And yes, by the way, there was no Russian demand for territory of any kind. Crimea, they wanted a twenty five year lease, which they negotiated, president Putin, and president Yanukovych. Not territory, not a claim. No NATO, you're not getting that base. In 2021, the war could have been avoided easily by president Biden saying to president Putin, NATO will not expand to Ukraine, and I will say so. I called Jake Sullivan. He teaches at Harvard. It's all consistent, after you fail in Washington, and I said, Jake, avoid a war. There’s not gonna be a war. Open door policy for NATO. Ukraine can be stopped when the president of The United States says publicly NATO will not enlarge.

"Peace in Ukraine is possible now." "The war started eleven years ago when The United States backed a violent coup to overthrow the Ukrainian government of president Viktor Yanukovych." "Why did The United States want NATO enlargement? Because The United States wanted to dominate Russia." "It was based on autonomy for Eastern Ukraine, the ethnically Russian part of Ukraine." "The United States and Germany ignored the treaty." "Do not accept neutrality. Fight on." "The Ukraine war can end now based on neutrality of Ukraine. Just say it. Neutrality." "Diplomacy where Europe and Russia sit down and undertake collective security, recognizing that Russia does not want NATO or NATO troops on its border, and Russia recognizing that Europe does not want Russian troops in Ukraine."

Mike opens by noting cautious optimism about a peace agreement, while acknowledging widespread skepticism and asking why negotiations have stalled. He cites Rubio’s Vanity Fair quote: offers exist to stop the war on current lines, but Russia allegedly rejects them. He asks for thoughts on Putin’s intentions and whether the war aims extend beyond the Donbas into broader Ukrainian territory, given repeated peace deals rejected over territorial concessions. Jonathan responds that the conflict has never been primarily about territory for Putin. He argues the core threat is internal to Russia: Ukraine’s political and democratic developments since 2014 challenge Putin’s regime and business model, creating an intrinsic threat to his rule. He suggests Putin seeks to keep Ukraine weak as a buffer zone between Western democracy and Russia, framing democracy and Western reform as a catastrophe for Russians. He emphasizes that Ukraine’s progress since 2014—reducing oligarchic influence, fighting corruption, building civil society—constitutes the real threat, not NATO expansion. He adds that deterrence considerations, not territorial gains, dominate Russia’s calculus, making a permanent settlement difficult so long as Ukraine remains Western-leaning and democratic. Mark counters, insisting that a true NATO-Ukraine peace would align with American terms, while acknowledging publicly stated US/NATO roles as proxies. He asserts that Russia wants a permanent settlement that keeps Ukraine out of NATO and returns Ukraine to constitutional neutrality, arguing that the Kyiv regime’s repression of Russian-speaking East Ukraine makes concessions unacceptable. He claims that the US and Europe have used media and NGOs to influence Ukraine, but notes that before full-scale war, Ukrainian media was oligarch-influenced, and that since 2014 independent outlets have proliferated, challenging Zelensky’s government. He contends that US funding via USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy served to promote Western values, and that Russia views NGOs as foreign-influenced instruments rather than genuine civil society. Mike asks whether US and Western funding of NGOs represents a push to gain influence inside Ukraine, and whether this influences Russia’s calculations. Jonathan acknowledges NGO funding sometimes lacked a coherent strategic objective but aligns with traditional Western aims like freedom of navigation and press, while noting Russia’s suspicion of foreign influence. He argues that Ukraine now has a diverse media landscape, with ministers’ accountability increasing, and he states that Ukraine’s East Ukrainian population at times favors greater autonomy or varied allegiances, though not necessarily alignment with Russia, and cautions against overgeneralizing. Mark returns to the NGO funding debate, noting Russia’s use of government-backed NGOs is far less extensive than Western interference prior to 2014. He argues that civil society funded by a foreign government is not a genuine civil society. He attacks the West’s “freedom of navigation” narrative by pointing to recent US actions in the Caribbean and US actions in international waters, challenging the validity of Western claims about universal freedoms. He also accuses the Kyiv regime of suppressing opposition and bans on 21 political parties, while disputing the extent of Western influence in shaping Ukrainian politics. The conversation shifts to Russia’s broader strategic goals and the potential for a freezing of lines. Mark argues that freezing lines is impossible for Russia because it would leave Donbas, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia under a Kyiv regime deemed anti-Russian by Moscow. Jonathan emphasizes that the conflict could only end with a regime change in Kyiv, or a fundamental political transformation in Ukraine, suggesting that peace is unlikely while the Putin regime remains in power. He predicts that Russia seeks to erase perceived internal threats and shift Ukraine away from the West, whereas Mark asserts that Moscow’s aim is not limited to limited territorial gains but to neutralizing Ukraine politically. They discuss Western rearmament: Germany’s move toward conscription and Europe’s overall buildup, with concerns about domestic political forces (AFD, Le Pen, Meloni) possibly aligning with Kremlin narratives. Jonathan warns that European rearmament could be destabilized if friendly parties gain influence, while Mark argues that Europe’s rhetoric is not matched by decisive deterrence, prompting continued Russian pressure. Towards the end, Mike asks whether either side believes negotiations will lead to a real settlement. Mark says no; he believes the war will end on the battlefield with neither party accepting the other’s terms. Jonathan agrees that the conflict may endure for generations, with a possible hybrid warfare phase if direct conflict escalates, and he notes that China could benefit strategically if Europe becomes preoccupied or destabilized. In closing, Mike thanks the guests, who acknowledge the complexity and intractability of a definitive peace in the near term.

Алексей Арестович заявляет, что патриот украинцев и русских народов не должны воевать. Он предлагает мир с Россией на условиях переговоров: «Я отдаю четыре области. И Крым.» и создание арбитражной системы, установление нейтрального статуса Украины. Он считает проектность Украины ключевым вопросом и говорит, что смена проекта необходима. Говоря о политике, он планирует баллотироваться, но только при условии радикальной смены курса; иначе «меня загонят FPV». Его отношение к Зеленскому претерпело резкую эволюцию: «посадите его пожизненно, если придёте к власти», затем он признал маргинализацию и сменил риторику. В Украине у него санкции; он «живу через YouTube». Он обвиняет внутренние элиты в коррупции и утверждает существование «сеток» из офиса президента, Порошенко и российской стороны. Он восхваляет Путина как «самого последовательного и рационального политика», предлагает встречи с Козаком и идею коллективного иска против Запада. Он говорит о нейтральности и символическом единстве Руси. Alexey Arrestovich states that patriots of Ukrainians and Russians should not fight. He proposes peace with Russia on negotiation terms: «I give four regions. And Crimea.» and the creation of an arbitration system, establishing a neutral status for Ukraine. He views Ukraine’s “project-ness” as key and says a change of project is necessary. Talking about politics, he plans to run, but only if there is a radical shift; otherwise «they will push me to FPV.» His stance toward Zelensky has undergone a sharp evolution: «lock him up for life if you come to power,» then he acknowledged marginalization and changed rhetoric. In Ukraine he faces sanctions; he «lives via YouTube.» He accuses domestic elites of corruption and asserts the existence of “nets” from the presidential office, Poroshenko, and the Russian side. He hails Putin as «the most coherent and rational politician,» proposes meetings with Kozak and the idea of a collective lawsuit against the West. He speaks of neutrality and symbolic unity of Rus'.

Speaker 1 argues that 'this will be a peace agreement, not a ceasefire,' forcing the U.S., Russia, and Europe to define peace beyond a halt. He says the war reflects 'an unnecessary set of provocations from the West, not the unprovoked war of aggression by Russia.' He favors Ukraine's security through neutrality, insisting 'Ukraine's real security is neutrality' and 'Neutrality is desirable.' He envisions a monitored security arrangement via the UN Security Council, with 'Russia is one of the guarantors of peace because it's got security interests that need to be respected alongside Ukraine.' He notes 'there was no treaty to end World War II' and that 'promises unfulfilled by the West of no NATO enlargement.' He criticizes Western leadership as 'a gang of the rankest amateurs' and laments 'the Russophobia is rampant and wild' in Europe, urging renewed collective security discussions.

Speaker 0 argues that this is not an attack by Putin on Ukraine in the way it is commonly framed. The speaker references 1990, stating that on 02/09/1990 James Baker III told Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move eastward if Germany unified, and that Gorbachev agreed, ending World War II. The speaker asserts that the US then cheated starting in 1994 when Clinton signed off on a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine, marking the rise of the neocons and identifying Clinton as the first agent of this. NATO expansion began in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, at which point Russia did not see a direct threat. The speaker notes the US-led bombing of Serbia in 1999 as problematic, describing it as NATO bombing Belgrade for seventy-eight straight days to break the country apart, which Russia did not like. Putin became president, and the Russians initially tolerated and complained but were largely subdued. The speaker claims Putin started out pro-European and pro-American, even suggesting joining NATO when there was some mutual respect. After 9/11 and the Afghan conflict, Russia supported the effort to root out terror. Two decisive actions are highlighted: in 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, described as perhaps the most decisive event rarely discussed in this context. This led to the US placing missile systems in Eastern Europe, which Russia views as a direct threat. The speaker mentions a soft regime change operation in Ukraine in 2004-2005, followed by Yanukovych winning the election in 2009 and becoming president in 2010 on the basis of neutrality for Ukraine. This calmed tensions because the US was pushing NATO, while Ukrainian public opinion reportedly did not want NATO membership, citing a divided country between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians and a desire to stay away from certain conflicts. In 02/22/2014, the United States allegedly participated in the overthrow of Yanukovych, described as a typical US regime change operation. The Russians supposedly intercepted a call between Victoria Nuland (then at the State Department, now at Columbia University) and Jeffrey Piot, the US ambassador to Ukraine, discussing who would be in the next government. The speaker asserts that after these events, the US said NATO would enlarge, while Putin repeatedly warned to stop, noting that promises were made not to enlarge NATO. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia are listed as having joined NATO in 2004, before the broader enlargement. The speaker accuses the US of rejecting the basic idea of not expanding NATO to Russia’s border while placing missile systems after breaking a treaty, including walking out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019. On 12/15/2021, Putin allegedly proposed a draft Russia-US security agreement with no NATO enlargement, which the speaker says he communicated to the White House, urging negotiations to avoid war. The speaker claims Jake Sullivan asserted an open-door policy for NATO enlargement, calling it “bullshit,” and asserts that they refused negotiations, leading to the special military operation, with Zelensky offering neutrality and Western leaders pushing Ukraine to fight, resulting in “600,000 deaths now of Ukrainians.”

Ukraine's decision to give up nuclear weapons and pursue NATO membership is criticized as a mistake. The US is blamed for pushing Ukraine towards NATO and overthrowing Yanukovych in 2014, leading to the current crisis. The speaker urges the White House to avoid war by reassuring Russia that NATO will not expand further. The situation is seen as a result of long-standing US foreign policy goals.

When the Maidan revolution happened, I was asked to advise the new Ukrainian prime minister on the economic crisis. I flew to Kyiv, and while there, I was told that the US had financed the people at Maidan. This supposed spontaneous revolution of dignity raises some questions. Where did all the media outlets come from? Who organized this? Where did the buses come from, and who called all those people in? It was clearly an organized effort.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify and order the core claims and chronology of events. - Preserve the speaker’s key assertions and specific examples, including quoted phrases where appears in the transcript. - Highlight unique or surprising points (e.g., alleged coups, Minsk II interpretation). - Exclude repetition, filler, and off-topic content. - Avoid commentary on truthfulness; present claims as stated. - Translate only if needed (not needed here); keep the summary within 380–476 words. The speaker argues that the United States has repeatedly acted to redraw borders and topple governments without UN authorization, and that Western powers have treated international agreements as tools to serve their interests. He cites the Belgrade bombing for seventy-eight days as the first post-World War II European war that aimed to break Serbia, create Kosovo as an enclave, and install a NATO base in the Balkans, describing it as a NATO mission without UN authority. He lists additional interventions: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, with the assertion that the Obama and Hillary Clinton era tasked the CIA to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, and that NATO illegally bombed Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi. He also recounts Kyiv in February 2014, stating that the United States overthrew Yanukovych together with right-wing Ukrainian forces, noting that this occurred after the EU had reached an agreement for early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand-down by both sides. He emphasizes that the next day the opposition asserted disagreement, and the United States immediately backed the new government, ignoring the prior constitutional agreement. In 2015, he contends the Russians did not seek Donbas restoration but peace through negotiations. Minsk II, a UN Security Council unanimously adopted treaty, was signed by the Ukrainian government and guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. He states that it was laughed at inside the US government, despite the UN endorsement. He cites Angela Merkel’s later remark in a desight-era interview after the 2022 escalation, claiming she said Minsk II was “a holding pattern to give Ukraine time to build its strength.” He counters that Minsk II was a UN Security Council unanimously adopted treaty meant to end the war. He asserts familiarity with the United States government and urges distrust, arguing that both sides should sit down publicly and present their terms “in front of the whole world” for judgment. He calls for clear terms: “We’re not going to overthrow governments anymore,” and asks the United States to say “We accept this agreement,” and Russia to say “We’re not stepping one foot farther than whatever the boundary is actually reached,” with NATO not enlarging. He envisions putting the terms on paper for the world to see, asserting that “once in a while, treaties actually hold.”

Speaker 0: He asks about comparisons to World War II and what Hitler did in Czechoslovakia. Initially, he takes some territory. He appeased Putin the same way they appeased Hitler. But then, especially if he takes the defensive line in Donbas, which Ukraine still holds at the moment, it puts Putin in a better position to continue invading more and more territory out of Ukraine over the next ten, fifteen years rather than trying to achieve it all in the next few months or next couple of years? Speaker 1: It’s wildly insulting to compare Putin to Hitler for obvious reasons. But regarding territory, for seven years before Russia invaded, Russia was on board with the Minsk Accords, brokered in February 2015. The Minsk Accords would have left all of Ukraine intact; Ukraine would have kept the Donbas. All Ukraine had to do was pass some laws in its parliament enshrining autonomous rights for the ethnic Russian regions of the Donbas, letting them speak the Russian language, letting them select their own judges, letting them have trade with Russia if they wanted to. And yes, that Minsk accord, if it had been implemented, would have kept Ukraine out of NATO. So this idea that Russia’s bent on conquest not only in Ukraine but everywhere is totally undermined by the available evidence. Russia was fine with even the Donbas staying in Ukraine as long as the cultural rights of Ukrainians of ethnic Russians in the Donbas were respected and if Ukraine stayed out of NATO. And if you want to say that that’s imperialist for Russia to demand the Ukraine side of NATO, would we ever accept Canada or Mexico being in a hostile military alliance led by Russia and China? Of course not. And by the way, Ukraine not being in NATO was, for a long time, the majority public position inside of Ukraine, if you look at polls, and it was enshrined in Ukraine’s declaration of state sovereignty, which said that Ukraine will be a permanently neutral state. So these were not radical demands by Putin at all. It was just ultraradicals in Ukraine—the ultranationalists, like groups like the Azov battalion, Right Sector, Vubota—which refused to accept the compromise of Minsk. You read the memoir of Angela Merkel; they all say the same thing. It was a hostility inside of Ukraine that prevented Minsk from being implemented. And had Minsk been implemented, I think you would have avoided this war. So in short, the idea that Putin has territorial designs in Ukraine is undermined by the available evidence, which then shows how completely idiotic it is to believe he has territorial designs beyond Ukraine as well.

When the Maidan happened, I was asked to meet with the new Ukrainian prime minister to discuss the economic crisis. I went to Kyiv, and while I was there, I was told that the US had paid for all the people at the Maidan. People call it a spontaneous revolution of dignity, but where do all the media outlets, the organization, the buses, and the people come from? It's clear that this was an organized effort.

The war in Ukraine was a terrible debacle caused by The United States expanding NATO despite Russia's objections. Ukraine and Russia were about to sign a peace agreement based on neutrality, but "The United States said, no." We want "military bases. We want NATO there. Don't sign the agreement." The speaker argues the conflict could end if Trump publicly declared that NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine: "NATO will not move one inch eastward, not one inch." They note "They promised." The piece cites Clinton in 1994 beginning NATO enlargement and calls this "the most basic point" that we do not need conflict. It says we end Ukraine's war with Ukrainian neutrality and halting NATO enlargement; Russia won't accept it, "just like The United States didn't accept bases in Cuba of the Russian military." It closes with AI as a better mediator: "it'll give you both sides of the argument."

Putin's intention in the war was to force Zelensky to negotiate—Neutrality. "The idea was to keep NATO. And what is NATO? It's The United States off of Russia's border. No more, no less." When the Soviet Union ended in 1991, an agreement was made that NATO will not move one inch eastward, but "the decision was taken formally in 1994 when president Clinton signed off on NATO enlargement to the East, all the way to Ukraine and into Georgia." Enlargement continued: 1999 (Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic); 2004 (Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia). Putin said "stop" in 02/2007; in 02/2008, "The United States jammed down Europe's throat enlargement of NATO to Ukraine and to Georgia." 02/2010, Yanukovych neutrality; US overthrow in 2014; Minsk accords; "autonomy for the Russian speaking regions" in the East. "Blinken told Lavrov in January 2022, The United States reserves the right to put missile systems wherever it wants." The war started; "Ukraine walked away unilaterally from a near agreement" because "The United States told them to." It's the pure proxy war; and "a million Ukrainians have died or been severely"

In February 2014, the US actively worked to overthrow Yanukovych. You can hear this in the phone call between Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Peter Piatt. It's fascinating. In the call, I mentioned that Klitschko shouldn't be in the government, it's not necessary or a good idea. Yatseniuk is the right person because of his economic and governing experience. Also, "fuck the EU." We need to do something to make this situation better.

I established a foundation in Ukraine prior to its independence in 1990. Figures like George Soros were unfortunately everywhere in these events. This team consisting of people like Newland, Soros, and Biden, acted in favor of Hillary Clinton's interests and tried to prevent Mr. Trump from being elected. We can look at the Arab Spring in North African countries such as Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt, as well as the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, and the Orange Revolution in 2004. The Revolution of Dignity in 2013 and 2014, all of this is related to his activities. He continued his operations in 2015 and 2016. Hunter Biden had deals in Ukraine, being on the board of directors of an oil and gas company in Ukraine. This explains the economic interests of the Biden family. Then there's the matter of supposed Russian election interference.