TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I'm aligned with the USA and the world, and I want this conflict resolved. It's tough to deal with the hatred involved, but I want to see a deal done in Europe. I can be tough, but that won't get us a deal. For four years, tough talk didn't stop Putin. Diplomacy is the path. During Obama, Trump and Biden's terms, nobody stopped Putin from occupying parts of Ukraine. We signed ceasefire and gas contracts, but he broke them. What kind of diplomacy are we talking about? It is disrespectful to come into the Oval Office and litigate this in front of the American media. Everyone has problems during war. You are gambling with World War Three and disrespecting a country that has backed you. Have you said thank you? You are running low on soldiers. We gave you $350 billion and military equipment. Without us, this war would have been over in two weeks. If you can get a ceasefire right now, I tell you you take it so the bullets stop flying and you meant stop getting. I gave you javelins. Obama gave sheets. He didn't break deals with me. If Russia breaks a ceasefire, what if a bomb drops on your head right now? I've empowered you to be a tough guy, and I don't think you'd be a tough guy without The United States. You're either gonna make a deal, or we're out.

The speaker believes Vladimir Putin wants peace. Despite raining missiles, Putin's dream was to take over the whole country, but the speaker believes that because of them, Putin won't achieve this. The speaker states they don't trust many people, including the interviewer, accusing them of dishonesty and asking "fake questions." The speaker believes Putin respects them, and that is why Putin won't take over all of Ukraine, even though that was his original intention. The speaker concludes that the war should never have happened.

We had a meeting with President Zelensky, and it didn't go as well as I'd hoped. I believe he overplayed his hand. I'm focused on achieving peace, not engaging in a prolonged war. Zelensky seems intent on continuing the fight, but I'm determined to end the bloodshed. Thousands have died this week, and I care about all lives involved. If we don't act, he'll eventually be forced to make peace, but he'll be in a weaker position. I want immediate peace, and Putin is ready to end this conflict. However, Zelensky appears to want us to sign up and continue fighting, which we won't do. We're setting economic records and the feeling about our country is great. Zelensky needs to express a desire for peace, not dwell on negative comments. I don't trust or distrust, I just want a deal done. A ceasefire should happen now, but he doesn't want it. Without us, he doesn't win.

What if Russia breaks the ceasefire or peace talks? What do we do then? Okay, what if they broke it? I don't know. They broke it with Biden because they didn't respect him, or Obama. They respect me.

European leaders are not coming to rescue Zelensky from bullying; they are coming "because we've been working with the Europeans" and "the president invited them to come." The visit is not a stunt; there have been more meetings with Zelensky than with Putin, including "one meeting with Putin and, like, a dozen meetings with Zelensky." The White House says Zelensky told European leaders last week he wanted a cease-fire and that he would "walk out in two minutes" if Putin didn't agree; he spent three hours with Putin but "did not get one." The aim is "a peace agreement to end this war" and there was "enough progress" to move to the next phase. If peace isn't possible, "sanctions" are on the table, but "if he did this now, the moment the president puts those additional sanctions, that's the end of the talks." It will require concessions from both sides.

There is concern from the Europeans that Zelensky is being bullied into signing something away, which is why European leaders are coming as backup tomorrow. They are coming here tomorrow because we've been working with the Europeans; the president invited them to come. The president told those European leaders last week that he wanted to cease fire, and he said on television he would walk out if Putin didn’t agree, with severe consequences if he didn’t. He spent three hours with Putin and did not get one. Our goal is a peace agreement to end this war. There was enough progress in the talks to move to the next phase. If peace is not possible and the war continues, thousands will die. The president could impose new sanctions, but that would end talks; it will require concessions from both sides.

President Trump announced on Truth Social that he spoke with Russian President Putin for an hour and fifteen minutes. They discussed Ukraine's attacks on Russian airplanes and other attacks from both sides. Putin stated he will have to respond to the airfield attacks. Trump and Putin also discussed Iran and its nuclear weapons program, agreeing that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Putin offered to participate in discussions with Iran to help reach a rapid conclusion, with Trump stating Iran has been slow-walking their decision. The conversation occurred after Ukrainian and Russian representatives met in Istanbul to discuss swapping injured soldiers, but admitted there is no immediate end of peace in sight. Some believe Putin is testing Trump's administration to see how far he can push. Others question Trump's ability to influence Putin, as the U.S. has limited leverage over Russia. There are also concerns about Putin's actions beyond Ukraine, including construction on the Estonian border.

I don't think Putin can be trusted in negotiations. I believe he is a war criminal who should be imprisoned for life, or face execution. Regarding the exclusion of Ukraine and Europe from Russia-US negotiations, I'm unsure of the exact plan, but there might be a strategic reason. However, any significant peace talks that aim for a fair resolution must include Ukrainian participation and careful consideration of European interests. Again, Putin is a war criminal and should be in jail for the rest of his life, if not executed.

I don't know how a trilateral summit with Presidents Zelensky and Putin would work, they don't like each other and the US should never have allowed this situation to happen. I've stopped many wars, even some nobody's heard about. Ukraine wants to stop this war more than anyone. Negotiations should be between Ukraine and Russia, not Russia and the US. The US helps us because we are defending the line. If we fall, Russia will target the Baltics and Poland, and eventually, American soldiers will have to fight. Many Ukrainian cities are still standing. People are working, and children are going to school, even if it's difficult. Ukraine is fighting and living, despite Putin's claims. He has lost many soldiers and hasn't destroyed us.

It's an honor to have President Zelenskyy of Ukraine here. We've been working closely, and we have a fair deal to access rare earth resources. We've also had good discussions with Russia and President Putin to try and bring an end to the war. They're losing thousands of soldiers, and we want the fighting to stop so we can focus on rebuilding. The previous administration didn't speak to Russia, but I believe if I were president, this war would have never happened. We're going to sign an agreement, and I think we're fairly close to a deal.

I rely on Putin's worldview due to US history of illegal actions like bombing Belgrade, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. The US also supported the overthrow of leaders in Ukraine and Libya. The Minsk II agreement was ignored by the US, Germany, and France. Trust is lacking in the US government. Both sides should agree on terms to end the war, with clear boundaries and no further NATO enlargement. Treaties can be effective if upheld.

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

"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."

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."

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.

To restart talks, Zelensky needs to say he wants peace. He doesn't need to say negative things about me. He simply has to state, "I want to make peace. I don't want to fight this war any longer." His people are dying, and he needs to understand he doesn't hold the strong cards in this situation.

Speaker 0: "You know there is concern from the Europeans that president Zelensky is going to be bullied into signing something away." "That’s why you have these European leaders coming as backup tomorrow." Speaker 1: "It isn't. ... They're not coming here tomorrow to keep Zelenskyy from being bullied." He adds: "We've had one meeting with Putin and, like, a dozen meetings with Zelensky." "We've been working with these people for weeks." "They're coming here tomorrow because they chose to come here tomorrow." He notes "there was enough progress" to "move to the next phase" and "enough movement to justify a follow-up meeting with Zelensky and the Europeans." On sanctions, he says: "If peace is not gonna be possible here... the president has that option to then come in and impose new sanctions. But if he did this now, ... that's the end of the talks." "We wanna wind up with a peace deal that ends this war" and "It will require both sides to make concessions."

I see the hatred for Putin, making a deal tough. I want peace and am aligned with the world. I can be tough, but deals require more than that. Previous chest-thumping didn't work, diplomacy is needed. Trump's engaging in diplomacy. Russia occupied parts of Ukraine, nobody stopped them. Ceasefires were signed but broken, prisoners weren't exchanged. What kind of diplomacy are we even talking about? I'm trying to end the destruction of your country, but don't come here and start a fight. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines. Be thankful I'm trying to resolve this conflict. You should be appreciating the country that's backing you far more than a lot of people said they should have, and has given you billions of dollars in military equipment. Be thankful. You don't have the cards. If we get a ceasefire, you'd want to take it.

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.

It's surprising that a call between Trump and Putin occurred, and even more so that negotiations were discussed as the meeting concluded, leaving many unable to react. This raises concerns that Trump and Putin might reach agreements without considering the interests of Ukraine and Europe. This development comes after the new US Defense Minister, Pete Haxhes, during his visit, stated firmly that US troops would not participate in security arrangements in Ukraine. The US also doesn't believe that NATO membership is a realistic outcome of negotiations. Haxhes dismissed Ukraine's hopes of regaining all occupied territories, including Crimea, calling it unrealistic.

What Trump wants is a ceasefire. That's it. He wants a ceasefire. And if Putin can get convince him that the quickest route to a ceasefire is for Ukraine to leave mother Russia and say no to NATO, that's it. That's all that has to happen for a ceasefire. And what Putin is going to say is it won't matter in a month. In a month, we're going to own it all. If you want your ceasefire now, tell Ukraine to leave. If the Ukraine won't leave, we'll make them leave. There's nothing you can do to stop us. We're not afraid of your sanctions. We're not afraid of any of your threats. This is going to happen. We can either happen have it happen in a way that gets you the ceasefire you want, or it's just gonna happen. And I think Trump understands it.

The Alaska summit reinforced my belief that “president Putin agreed that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine,” a key point to consider. “I'm optimistic that, collectively, we can reach an agreement that would deter any future aggression against Ukraine,” though I also note, “I actually think there won't be. I think that's even over overrated, largely overrated.” European nations are gonna take a lot of the burden; “we're gonna help them, and we're gonna make it very secure.” We also need to discuss “the possible exchanges of territory taken into consideration the current line of contact.” That means “the war zone, the war lines that are pretty obvious, very sad, actually, to look at them.” The next step: “a trilateral meeting, and that will be worked out.” “I have a feeling you and president Putin are gonna work something out.” Ultimately, Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, with Putin, must decide. “I'll set up a meeting with President Putin.” “All of us would obviously prefer an immediate ceasefire … maybe something like that could happen.” “As of this moment, it's not happening.” “I believe a peace agreement … is very attainable,” and “The next step would be for a trilateral meeting, and that will be worked out.”

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

I'm not sure what the plan is with these Russia-US negotiations, but Ukraine and Europe need to be at the table for any meaningful peace talks to be fair. European interests must be carefully considered. As for trusting Putin in these negotiations? Absolutely not. He's a war criminal who should be in jail, if not executed. He violates every tenet of international law and should be indicted and prosecuted. We can trust the Russians to do anything to their advantage, even violate the rule of law.