TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify the central claim: Putin allegedly sent a draft treaty demanding no further NATO enlargement and invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO expansion. - Distinguish competing framings: is the war about NATO, democracy in Ukraine, or Russia’s sphere of influence? - Note repeated assertions that the issue is not about NATO, and capture variations of that claim. - Include claims about democracy in Ukraine used to justify actions (parties, books/music, elections). - Include the view that NATO is a fictitious adversary and that the conflict centers on strategic aims. - Record references to Russia expanding influence and the West challenging Russian interests. - Include emotional/epithet language (evil, sick, Hitler analogies) and any direct quotes that illustrate intensity. - Mention concluding remarks or sign-off elements (guests, transitions to next segment). Summary: Speaker 0 states that Putin actually sent a draft treaty asking NATO to sign a promise never to enlarge, as a precondition for not invading Ukraine, and that this pledge was refused, prompting Russia to go to war to prevent NATO across its borders. This line frames the invasion as linked to NATO enlargement, a claim that is repeatedly asserted by the same speaker. Across the discussion, however, multiple participants insist the matter is fundamentally not about NATO enlargement, repeatedly saying, “This is not about NATO,” and “not about NATO expansion.” One speaker counters that it was never about NATO and emphasizes a distinction between NATO expansionism and other motives. Amid the debate, another perspective emerges: it is about democratic expansion. One voice argues the war is about defending democracy, describing Ukraine as banning political parties, restricting books and music, and not holding elections, thereby presenting democracy as the rationale for current actions. In contrast, other participants challenge this framing, suggesting the war also concerns Russia’s ambitions to expand its sphere of influence, noting that the West’s direct challenge to Russian interests could have been avoided if not for Western actions. A recurrent claim is that NATO is a fictitious imaginary adversary used to justify Russian policy, with one speaker asserting that NATO is not the real trigger but a construct around Russia’s aims. Another speaker concedes that Russia desires a sphere of influence over Ukraine, and that the two explanations—NATO implications and sphere-of-influence goals—are not mutually exclusive; the West’s responses may have made conflict more likely. The discussion also includes emotionally charged comparisons to Hitler, with references to Hitler invading Poland and to Putin being described as evil or sick, and to the idea of not negotiating with a madman as a parallel to historical figures like Hitler. The segment closes with a reference to Senator Lindsey Graham, thanking him before transitioning to the next portion.

Speaker 1 claims Russia is engaging in disinformation campaigns and planning a false flag operation in Eastern Ukraine using pre-positioned operatives. This is based on declassified U.S. intelligence information. Speaker 0 asks for evidence to support these claims, comparing the situation to "crisis actors" and "Alex Jones territory." Speaker 0 questions where the declassified information is, stating that Speaker 1 has only made allegations without proof. Speaker 1 says the information is declassified and being made public to deter Russia or, failing that, to expose their fabrication of a pretext for action. Speaker 1 states that making the information public protects sensitive sources and methods. Speaker 0 asks what evidence suggests Russia is planning this, and Speaker 1 responds that the U.S. is confident in its intelligence. Speaker 1 alludes to the U.S. having detailed information but will not spell out what is in their possession. Speaker 1 says Russia has positioned forces and undertaken preparations for a potential invasion.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the Ukraine conflict as part of a broader geopolitical strategy attributed to a globalist elite. Speaker 1 contends that globalists in the White House, in Congress, and in European capitals want BlackRock to take over Ukraine to strip its resources and subjugate it to a globalist agenda, and they also aim to destroy Russia. The claim is that the war has never been about Ukraine itself, but about destroying Russia. According to Speaker 1, the people in charge failed to perform strategic analysis, underestimating Russia by treating it as if it were the post-Soviet state of 1992—weak and prostrate. The reference to John McCain’s description of Russia as “Spain with a gas station” is invoked to illustrate this hubris. The argument continues that Russians warned against NATO on their border and about the dangers of Western actions in Eastern Ukraine, but these concerns were ignored. Speaker 1 asserts that the outcome is a dangerous, ongoing war that could become regional or global, with a consequence that the White House is not fully grasping. He predicts a massive Russian offensive when ground conditions permit, foreseeing that much of what is currently identified as Ukraine—especially the Kyiv government—will be swept away. He claims the Kyiv government represents the interests of the globalist elite seeking resources to exploit, not the Ukrainian people. The discussion shifts to broader economic implications, including the potential loss of the petrodollar as Putin engages with Saudi Arabia and China. Speaker 1 frames the war as both military and financial, suggesting that BRICS could expand dramatically and move to a gold-backed currency, whether a single currency or a basket. He asserts that this shift threatens the current global financial system and that the globalists are desperate as a result. The speaker fears that once Ukraine’s fate becomes clear, there will be pressure to deploy US forces into Western Ukraine, with Polish and possibly Romanian troops, which would escalate into a full-scale war with Russia. According to Speaker 1, Putin has shown restraint and does not want a war with the West, but intervention in Western Ukraine could end in open conflict. Speaker 1 also argues that Putin has repeatedly warned against advancing the border toward Russia and transforming Ukraine into a hostile actor, framing what happens in Ukraine as an existential strategic interest to the United States. He contrasts this with a claim that Biden’s stance has prioritized regime change in Russia and the division of Russia to exploit it, while alleging that oligarchs like Kolomovsky, Soros, and others are part of this globalist project. The discussion concludes with criticisms of U.S. military recruitment practices, suggesting the Army and Marines are not prepared for such a conflict, including comments about recruitment of illegals encouraged by the administration.

Speaker 0: "Papa Gallo, parrot, stop repeating what everybody else is saying and think for yourself." "People have little minds. The masses follow." "My greatest concern is there's gonna be a false flag event that's gonna escalate this war." Speaker 1: "NATO can't keep going at this rate; not enough weapons to sustain Ukraine." "In a multipolar world, Russia, China, and India realize they need to cooperate because The US cannot be trusted." "They're gonna unite more." "When Biden put the sanctions on Russia, he said, quote, Putin's gonna pay the price." "We wrote in the Trends journal, no, they're not, that the people Russia has all of the technological, industrial, high-tech. They have they have all they need to be self sufficient." "All these companies pulling out of Russia, the Russian people are gonna take it over." "If we do, life on earth will be destroyed in twenty four hours."

Speaker 0 argues that the war is really about dark weapons, especially bioweapons, and focuses on labs near the Russian border that have moved from about 11 labs a decade ago to 30. He traces this back to President Obama, then Senator Obama in 2005, suggesting a long-running history that underpins current events. He contends there is substantial history to unpack and believes the investigation is worthwhile for understanding the situation. He notes that Gareth has long discussed American bio labs in Ukraine and acknowledges that people ridiculed that view in the past. He asks Gareth how he feels now that the topic is suddenly front and center in the news, suggesting a sense of vindication that the broader group knowledge is being disseminated. He claims to have an example in Andrew Weber, who worked with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, showing Obama, when he was a young senator in 2005, a vial of anthrax in Kyiv at a bio lab. Speaker 0 states that the claim there are no bioweapons in Ukraine is hard to believe, and asserts that people would not look at the evidence. He says it took a war for people to realize the situation and compares it to a Cuban missile crisis for Putin, arguing that as weapons get closer, the plans become more concrete and closer to execution. He emphasizes the proximity of weapons and labs to Russia’s border as a critical element, implying that the risk profile has increased over time. He frames the current conflict as one where the existence and proximity of bioweapons labs are central, and he uses the example of a 2005 scene involving Obama and a vial of anthrax to illustrate what he views as established evidence. Overall, he presents a narrative that the war reflects long-standing concerns about bioweapons labs in Ukraine and their strategic implications, culminating in a perception shift only after war began.

Speaker 0 discusses the formation of FSOC’s new Household Resilience Working Group, which will focus on American households’ financial condition. She notes that communities nationwide, especially in Texas’s 29th district, have faced destabilizing climate-disaster effects, with property insurance providers leaving states like Texas, California, and Florida due to growing climate risks. She asks what the administration is doing to address the risk that mortgages and other credit could become unavailable in certain regions because of climate change. Speaker 1 responds: “Again, congresswoman, are you familiar with KLW 24? No. It it was the base for everything that was done with climate and with all the proposed climate legislation and it has been discredited. So everything that FSOC previously did based on climate—” He asks, “Who discredited it?” Speaker 1 clarifies: “Nature Magazine has retracted the economic commitment of climate change more than eighteen months after first learning that the paper was fatally flawed with officers acknowledging that its errors are too substantial for a correction.”

Speaker: Discussing the future of Ukraine, Putin requested written plans from the Americans, but Biden refused to negotiate. This should have sparked concern in Germany, as a potential war would involve them. If conflict arises as the Americans warned, Germany will be drawn into the issue.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify core claims, end-state, and strategic stakes across the dialogue. - Preserve unique or surprising assertions, including direct phrases where pivotal. - Exclude repetition, filler, and off-topic asides; focus on moving arguments. - Translate nothing (content is already in English); present claims as stated, with minimal interpretation. - Do not insert opinions or adjudicate truth; report claims exactly as presented. - Target a concise, coherent 388–486 word summary. Speaker 1 asserts that the globalists—described as a "globalist neocon elite" on both the Hill and in the White House, plus elites in Europe—want to see BlackRock "take over Ukraine" to strip its resources and turn it into a subjugated state for the broader agenda. They also want to see Russia destroyed, arguing the war has never been about Ukraine but about what can be done to destroy Russia. Russia is depicted as weak, with references to earlier contemptuous assessments like "Russia is Spain with a gas station." The speakers contend Moscow had legitimate concerns about Western actions in Eastern Ukraine and NATO on its border; they claim Washington ignored those concerns and installed a hostile government in Kyiv in 2014. They say President Trump attempted to listen but was surrounded by loyalists who "took an oath of obedience" but who ignored his orders. The outcome foreseen is a serious war that could become regional or global, with the claim that the globalists are losing. When the ground dries in June, a "massive Russian offensive" is anticipated, and much of what is called Ukraine would be swept away, especially the Kyiv government, which the speaker claims serves elite interests rather than the Ukrainian people. Speaker 0 pivots to the petrodollar, noting Putin’s outreach to Saudis and Xi, suggesting that moving away from the petrodollar would undermine U.S. borrowing and living beyond means. Speaker 1 reframes the war as now financial as well as military. The BRICS alliance is described as expanding—"81 additional members"—and moving to a currency backed by gold, whether a single currency or a basket. This, they argue, would undermine the dollar and signal grave trouble for global finance, driving the globalists to desperate measures. They warn that once Western Ukraine falls, there would be pressure to deploy U.S. forces into Poland and Romania, with possible Romanian participation, leading to a full-fledged war if intervention occurs. Putin is described as having exercised tremendous restraint and patience, avoiding a war with the West; he supposedly does not want conflict with the West, but if Western forces involved themselves near the Polish border or beyond, “the gloves will come off.” The dialogue also asserts Russia’s strategic calculus: Putin warned against advancing the border to Russia, sought equal rights for Russians in Eastern Ukraine, and refused to surrender Crimea, which was seen as a bulwark against a U.S. naval base. Biden’s goal is framed as regime change and dividing Russia, with oligarchs such as Koloboyski and Soros alleged to be part of this globalist project. The plan is described as a strategic defense with an economy-of-force approach pushing toward the Polish border, setting up the threat of a protracted, multi-year conflict. The United States’ military recruitment is depicted as underprepared, including Marines being encouraged to recruit illegals.

The speakers argue about how to achieve peace with Russia and what must be on the table. The central claim is that a lasting peace on Ukraine cannot be achieved without addressing the status of certain Russian-held territories. They contend that the priority of the Slovak opposition is not simply “peace” but “closing down Putin,” and they suggest that some Western leaders misunderstand the reality of concessions necessary for peace. A key point raised is that, according to the speaker, a proposed agreement would leave the Donbas, along with Crimea, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, at their current front-line lines. They recount an account that, when Putin visited Alaska, Trump asked whether such concessions were on the table, and Trump reportedly accepted them but asked for time to think, prompting Zelensky and the European Union to reconsider. The speaker asserts that both Trump and Putin understood that if this issue is not resolved, it would repeatedly derail any agreement, noting that this pattern has persisted in past negotiations. The speaker asserts that, theoretically, there can be no peace without some territorial concessions, and asks whether the opposition has a different idea. They challenge those who claim to seek peace to propose an alternative. The speaker also argues that civil casualties alone cannot dictate the terms of peace; even if more civilians die, the numbers complicate rather than resolve the moral calculus. They claim that the leadership must meet to discuss and reach a plan that both sides could accept or reject, implying that unilateral opinions on the war’s end are insufficient. There is critique of postponing summits for political reasons, suggesting that meetings should happen regularly regardless of electoral timelines (e.g., waiting for Hungary’s elections to influence talks). The speaker asserts that hundreds or thousands are discussed at every summit, and argues that stopping discussions is not a solution, implying that only negotiations can yield real outcomes. Regarding energy policy, the speaker labels a proposed energy package as ideologically driven and harmful to all parties. They question what happens when the war ends and how the energy debate persists. They assert that Russia remains a major supplier of gas to Europe and to Ukraine’s needs, portraying sanctions as failing to alter Russia’s behavior. Finally, the speaker contends that Russia’s conventional military power cannot be defeated outright, and that the Ukraine will bear the heaviest losses and territorial losses in any outcome. They describe the war as ultimately producing a costly result for Ukraine, with the prospect that the country will lose territory and suffer immense casualties, while Russia continues to hold the upper hand militarily in many respects.

Checklist: - Identify the central timeline, actors, and claims about the 2013–2014 Ukraine crisis as presented. - Extract key factual points: EU association agreement, last-minute document addendum, gas price details, Russian asset moves, three-way talks, and Crimea. - Highlight unique or surprising elements the speakers emphasize (gas contract addendum, $15 billion reserve placement, guarantors, “coup” narrative). - Maintain the transcript’s asserted claims without evaluating them; avoid judgments or qualifiers. - Translate content into clear English while preserving original meaning and emphasis. - Keep the summary within 416–521 words. The transcript presents a narrative about the Ukraine crisis of early 2014 from a Russia-facing perspective, arguing that the West deliberately supported a non-constitutional overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych and that Moscow’s actions were a defensive reaction to Western interference and to protect Russian interests. It begins by recalling the start of the crisis over Ukraine’s plan to sign an EU–Ukraine Association Agreement. The speakers insist that the talks did not involve a rejection of the document, only a postponement for further work, and that this move occurred within Yanukovych’s constitutional authority. They assert Western support for a “state coup” against the legitimate government, challenging the idea that the protests in Kyiv were spontaneous or purely domestic. A pivotal moment cited is a last-minute disclosure of documents to be signed, including an addendum to a 2009 gas-purchase contract, which would allow Gazprom to sell gas to Ukraine at 268.5 dollars per thousand cubic meters (compared with about 400 dollars at that time). The speakers claim Russia also placed 15 billion dollars of its Ukrainian government reserves into Ukrainian government bonds, and they emphasize that there was no discussion of joining the Russian-led Customs Union during these events. They argue that Ukrainian public sentiment had already been primed for association with Europe, with slogans such as “Want to live like in Paris? We want to sign,” but warn that the agreement would impose hard terms: open markets, new regulatory regimes, and damage to Ukrainian industries unless carefully managed. The discussion calls out Western “guarantors” of the agreement (Poland, France, Germany) for pressuring Kyiv and for what they describe as a public shaming of Yanukovych, while European Commission officials urged restraint and to avoid violence. The speakers describe Kyiv’s protests as increasingly aggressive and branded some participants as “militants” prepared for a presidential election year, suggesting the demonstrations were premeditated and strategically timed. They deny allegiance to NATO membership, while stressing Ukraine’s sovereignty and Moscow’s insistence that sovereignty also means not allowing coups or external interference to topple governments. They recount a sequence of diplomatic exchanges: Obama’s call on the evening of January 21, with assurances about fulfilling agreements and Russia’s own commitments; Yanukovych’s decision to travel to Kharkiv and consider the situation stabilized; Western leaders’ public guarantees that did not prevent a change of power. Putin contends that Yanukovych surrendered as negotiations collapsed, and, after the coup, Crimea returned to Russia rather than the reverse. The narrative culminates in the claim that Western actions severed Russian–European ties, fueled a protracted armed conflict, and placed the world on the brink of broader confrontation. The speakers contend that the crisis could have been resolved earlier in February 2014, and they frame the Western-led coup as the origin of the prolonged Ukraine–Russia rift, with long-term consequences for global leadership and regional stability.

Larry: Lavrov claimed Ukraine attempted to attack Putin’s official residence in Novgorod with around 91 long-range drones in December; allegedly all intercepted, no proof provided, no reported injuries or damage. Lavrov said retaliation is coming, targets for retaliatory strikes and timing had been set. Putin supposedly mentioned this on a call to Trump two days before the Zelensky meeting in Florida; Yuri, a Kremlin aide, said Putin was shocked and outraged, and that it would influence Washington’s approach to working with Zelensky. Russians claim Trump was relieved that no Tomahawk missiles were provided to Ukraine. No US confirmation; Trump described the meeting with Putin as very productive, and discussions included the temporary ceasefire not being an option. Budanov had suggested it wouldn’t be the first assassination attempt on Putin, but the most consequential due to timing. The question posed: who is the target—Ukraine, Zelensky, Budanov—or a Russian false flag to justify attacks and derail negotiations. Speaker 1: Timelines. The attack allegedly began the night of the 28th and continued into the 29th. The Russians say it was an attack on one of Putin’s residences, described as terrorism. Putin hasn’t lived at his residences for three years, using the Kremlin instead, but this is not the first Ukrainian attempt to target Putin; there was a proposed attack when he flew into Kursk by helicopter. Russians are upset that this attack had no military objective, only potential assassination, and they know Putin wasn’t there. The Russians view it as real and plan to respond; Lavrov indicated that negotiations would be reexamined. Budanov claims Ukrainian intelligence has targeted Putin multiple times; the attack timing coincides with Zelensky in Florida, suggesting possible rifts or risk of undermining negotiations. The possibility of Western (American or British) intelligence involvement is raised, with speculation about CIA influence or European intelligence, particularly Britain’s MI6, given its Ukrainian roots. The question remains whether the attack was staged to derail negotiations or a genuine strike. Larry: If Ukraine did this, why would they? Ukraine might want to eliminate an obstacle to peace, though that could backfire; some argue Putin is more restrained than any immediate successor. If 91 drones were launched, Western intelligence would likely be involved, possibly undermining Trump’s approach. There is a sense of mixed messages from U.S. intelligence, with individuals like Susan Miller pushing claims of Russian interference that contradict other narratives. Zelensky stated no territory would be ceded as part of negotiations; Russia’s position is that Crimea, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk must be permanently part of the Russian Federation, elections must occur in Ukraine before negotiations, NATO must be out of Ukraine, and demilitarization is non-negotiable. Russia suggests there will be no 800,000-man army; these conditions are not open for negotiation. Russia may be willing to discuss numbers of troops for Ukraine, but not to concede core territorial goals. Speaker 0: If CIA or other elements were behind this, could it be to undermine Trump or push for a peace deal by pressuring Putin? Putin showed up in uniform with the military leadership, signaling a hard stance on land/territory, stating that negotiations should proceed without ceasing. Some argue this would trigger a stronger Russian push, while others see this as undermining Trump’s efforts. Trump and Zelensky had discussed a peace plan with 90-95% agreement, with a few thorny issues, possibly territorial. Trump characterized their call as productive; Russia reportedly agreed to support Ukraine postwar with discounted energy and resources. Lavrov’s rapid response to the attack and the potential retaliation would affect ongoing negotiations, which some view as already derailed due to Ukraine’s intransigence on concessions. Speaker 1: Could European intelligence be involved? Britain’s MI6 is seen as critical; there is a suggestion that British intelligence could have acted without American consultation. This would strain relations with Trump, especially after new security strategy. The transcript also notes a broader shift in Western posture: some European leaders are pushing for stronger defense and a more independent European stance, which might influence the dynamic around negotiations and intelligence actions. Speaker 0: Zelensky’s Christmas remark, “may he perish,” followed by an attack on Putin’s residence, prompts questions about who’s pulling Zelensky’s strings. Zelensky is described as the “highest paid actor in the world” with large sums allegedly pilfered from Ukraine’s aid; Zelensky could be expendable to those steering Ukraine’s direction. The meeting in Mar-a-Lago between Zelensky, Trump, and others occurred while the Putin residence attack was underway, suggesting an attempt to undermine negotiations. Budanov’s connection to the CIA and potential independent actions by Ukrainian intelligence raise further concerns about internal Ukrainian divisions. Speaker 1: Russia’s potential retaliation could target Ukrainian intelligence assets like the SBU headquarters in Kyiv, or European assets inside Ukraine if evidence points to Western involvement. Russia’s current military actions include continuing strikes on power infrastructure, with movements in Zaporizhzhia and around Kherson, indicating an axis of attack. Independently, Russia claims significant ground progress; Ukraine counters with claims of selective advances by Russia and a favorable propaganda edge for Ukraine. The battlefield metrics show Russia increasing manpower and maintaining multiple axes of attack, with eight or more fronts, while Ukrainian recoveries of bodies show a ratio suggesting heavy Ukrainian losses. Speaker 0: The conversation ends with expectations for retaliation, possible new European involvement, and the enduring fear that negotiations remain unsettled. The next days could reveal more about who is behind the attack, how Russia responds, and whether a path to peace remains possible, given the conflicting narratives and competing strategic interests.

The speaker notes that 'the climate change hysteria has sort of magically gone away' and offers two theories: 'the climate hysteria was astroturfed' with 'funding got pulled with Biden out,' or that 'there's so much money to be made in AI that no one wants to criticize the energy industry anymore.' They add that 'climate change was always a luxury belief in Europe but Europe is having financial problems.' The speaker argues that 'the data has been so not cooperating now for several years and we don't have we just don't have the signs that they promise us' and says 'All data is fake,' questions 'measuring the temperature of the earth,' mentions 'No. We don't have like a new technology,' and concludes 'climate change I'm not expecting to make a big comeback but I could be wrong.'

Speaker 0: It is an indictment of your own leadership. And in countries across Europe, the leaders feel that way. Russia is an embarrassment to them because it is, relatively speaking, thriving. And so they all, as one, backed the Biden administration's plan to have a war with Russia. And let's stop lying. This was not an unprovoked invasion. Putin just randomly went over the line into Eastern Ukraine and stole these oblast. He stole this land that belonged to another people. That's a total lie, and it's not a defense of Putin to call it out as a lie because it is, and everybody knows it now. The truth is that in 2001, Putin, same guy, same leader, asked the Bush administration in person directly to George W. Bush, I would like to join NATO. I would like to join the defensive alliance that exists to keep me from moving west into Western Europe. In other words, you won. I'm joining your team. And due in part to his own limitations as a leader and due in part to the counsel that he received from Condoleezza Rice at the time, George w Bush turned down that offer and prevented Russia from joining NATO. And the guest we're gonna speak to in a moment, if you're wondering if he has a good track record of calling future events, said at the time, this decision to turn down Vladimir Putin's it's twenty five years ago, Vladimir Putin's request to join NATO, to join the West, to all be in it together, to work together, this decision made by the Bush administration guarantees a collision with the West. We are now on a collision course. And, of course, he was absolutely right because NATO didn't want Russia because NATO wanted a war with Russia, and boy, they got it. And so from 2001 all the way to 2022, twenty one years, NATO moved inexorably east surrounding Russia. And many times, again, this is not a defense of Russia. It's just a fact. Many times, the Russian government under Putin said, woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Are threatening our core national interest, which is not to have other people's missiles on our borders back off. And then in 2014, the Obama administration overthrew the government of Ukraine to put an American puppet in there, thereby sealing the fate of nations. When that happened, and Sergei Karganov said it at the time, you have just guaranteed a war in Ukraine that will destroy Ukraine.

Speaker 0 outlines that the United States is struggling to supply Ukraine with missiles, Israel with air defense systems, and other allies as well, including Taiwan which has paid the US for billions of military equipment that has not yet been delivered. All of these needs rely on rare earths and magnets, noting that China manufactures about 90–92% of the magnets. He asks what the impact would be on the US military, the US economy, and the European economy, as well as the rest of the world, with the expectation that the effects would primarily target the US. He emphasizes focusing on what would happen to the US if China proceeds with those restrictions. Speaker 1 responds that it would amount to a sudden stop in the production of equipment, machinery, devices, and gadgets. He stresses that rare earths are used universally in electronic production and are not easily separated into defense-related versus civilian uses. He compares rare earths to electricity in that sense. He notes that the phones and computers people use rely on rare earths, underscoring that the impact would be a global, broad economic disruption rather than a narrowly targeted strategy.

Speaker 0: Welcome to game plan. I'm Shivan Jan now. So far, there is only one winner in this war in West Asia, and that's Russia. Mind you, I'm not saying that this was acknowledged by the European Council president Antonio Costa. US Israeli strikes in West Asia, they have driven up the price of oil, strengthening the Kremlin's ability to fund its military campaign. Now in a sharp reversal from last year's policy of penalizing countries for buying Russian energy, US treasury secretary Scott Pessen said that The United States could unsanction other Russian oil to keep the flow of oil intact. And this is because the Strait Of Hormuz, the pivotal point from where this war is kind of converging, that is under complete Iranian control. Movement of ships has been blocked. Movement of oil has been blocked. It has shot up the oil prices, and the repercussions are being felt across the world at this point. Is the war proving to be a boon for Russia whose economy is dependent on energy exports? As the state of Hormuz gets blocked, Russia gets a free hand at selling its oil at rates that can be expounded without proper discounts as well. Is Putin the one winning in the war that US and Israel started against Iran? To discuss this with me on game plan is doctor Glenn Deesen, professor of international relations at the University of Southeastern Norway. Glenn, always a pleasure speaking with you. Thanks so much for joining me here. Trump and Putin, they held a call recently, the first time this year, and this was to discuss the discuss the ongoing hostilities in Iran. What do you think they would have discussed, and what kind of a role can Putin be playing in the ongoing war? Speaker 1: Well, I assume some of the things to discuss was obviously the the the extent to which The US and Russia targets each other because one of the things that the American media has been complaining about is the likelihood that Russia is providing intelligence to Iran for targets, but of course this is what The United States been doing for years and continues to do, that is give the Ukrainians targets to hit Russia. So I think there's a necessity to begin to discuss is appropriate and again what happens behind these doors, I don't know. But also of course there has to be some scaling back of the energy sanctions against Russia to bring this, the energy prices under control. As you suggest, they are now very much out of control. But I think also the main thing they've discussed is how to bring this war to an end because I think it's perfectly clear now that this US attack on Iran was a terrible mistake, and it appears that Putin would be the the main middleman who would might be able to bring an end to this war. But, again, it depends what can be done as what the Iranians will demand may be more than what the Americans can deliver. Speaker 0: Glenn, as you mentioned, Putin could perhaps be the main person to bring peace in this war. Putin has the highest chance of acting as peacemaker in West Asia. Is there anyone other than Putin at this point who can bring? Because just look at the optics of it. US starts a war, and I think ten days into it, he needs to make a call to Vladimir Putin to discuss that same war. How does it look for The US? Speaker 1: Well, they don't care for this, of course, but that it's similar to what to what happened with the war against Syria. That is, if you remember, back at president Obama's time, he had set these red lines, he were gonna attack Syria. It was quite obvious that this would be a disaster. So he went to the Russian president and he was able to get a deal through and which essentially took Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. So it was, you know, it it it is the reality or the optics of it isn't great given that The US has been fighting a proxy war for years against Russia, but but, know, at some point, you have to put the optics aside. Who who else would be in a position to help to negotiate this? I'm thinking, you know, perhaps China could be a middleman, but I think given that The United States, especially under the Trump administration, wants to improve bilateral ties with Russia, I I I think he's probably the best, yeah, the best bet. Speaker 0: Would it be fair to say that Putin is emerging as a winner in this ongoing West Asia war, which only seems to be expanding within the West Asian region? Speaker 1: Well, no. I think, yeah, to a large extent, I think that is correct because the energy prices are way up. The US have to scale back sanctions. The all the weapons which The US had intended to ship towards Ukraine to fight Russia is now being depleted. For European leaders, as you mentioned earlier on, to who aspire to prolong the war in Ukraine, this is an absolute disaster. And we'll see that countries that cut the energy ties or at least reduced energy ties with Russia at the best of American pressure, they of course have learned a lesson now as well that this was not a good idea that you don't necessarily put bet too much on a hegemon in decline, so countries who before paid discounts now may have to pay premium. We'll see that Iran, which I assume is getting some support from Russia sees this relationship improving dramatically. They're moving much closer, which is good for Russia because the Iranians always have some suspicions towards the Russians given well a long history they've had through the centuries of conflict. So all of this improves. You can also say that The Gulf States, the weakening of The Gulf States has also a big impact on weakening The U. S. Ability to restore its hegemony because what show what's obvious now is that the Gulf States are not getting protection instead they're becoming very vulnerable as frontline states and The US is no longer seen as that reliable. Well, if they're not going to bet their security on The United States anymore then they may not have that much pressure to sell their oil in dollars. You're not gonna have those recycled petrodollars coming back to The US, and suddenly the whole AI race with China looks a lot weaker as well. So I think across the board, a lot of things look good for Russia, but and there is a big but here, and that is I don't think that the Russians want this war nonetheless because the Russians, much like the Chinese, value stability and predictability. And what's happening in Iran now could again, if something would happen to Iran collapse, that would be a disaster for this Greater Eurasia initiative that is to integrate economies of Greater Eurasian Continent, but also this could spiral into a world war. So from this perspective, it's very dangerous and I don't doubt that the Russians therefore want to put an end to this war simply because I guess much like India, they don't want the Eurasian Continent to be too China centric, they would like to have many poles of power and this requires diversification. This means that the Russians need close ties with Iran, with India and other countries. So for the Americans to knock off Iran off the, you know, the chessboard, the greater Eurasian chessboard would be a disaster for the Russians. So, yes, I think they're prospering or benefiting from this, but they they do wanna put an end to it. Speaker 0: Understood. Glenn, let me just come to the Strait Of Hormuz. You know, the objectives of U. S. Behind starting this war, that has been questioned enough. Why did you start this war in the first place? Those are questions not just emerging, you know, globally. They're also emerging from inside The U. S. But if you look at what a win will actually look like for US, would it be the state of Hormuz? Like, which whoever controls the state of Hormuz is eventually who walks away as you know, walks away with the victory at this point because The US was looking for a change in regime. They mentioned it enough number of times. That hasn't happened and doesn't seem like it's going to happen. Is the state of Hormuz the winning factor now? Speaker 1: Well, I I I don't think any The US would be in a position to control this just given the geography. So The US obviously went into into this war with the objective of regime change. That was the goal. This was the decapitation strike, this was the hope of killing Khamenei and obviously it didn't work. I think it shouldn't have come as a surprise, but you know killing the leader of Iran only created more solidarity within the country. And also the idea that the whole armed forces would begin to disintegrate once they had been punished enough, also proven to be incorrect. So I think at the moment you see the American pivoting a bit. Some are talking about the Strait Of Moose that this should be a goal, others are saying you see a shift now towards saying well, actually what we really want to do is just degrade Iran's missile capabilities that they won't have this long range missiles. And again, you know, these are the kind of vague objectives which they can essentially declare victory today then because Iran has had many of its missiles destroyed. Also it launched a lot of its missiles at U. S. Targets which means that its missile stockpile has been reduced. So this should be a source of optimism when The U. S. Moves from this very hard line objective such as regime change and they shift in towards missiles, reducing the missile stockpiles or something like this. But the straight of our moves, I think, is beyond what what is reasonable. It's it will be too difficult. So I don't think they will But why push too hard on do Speaker 0: you feel it would be difficult if I were to just look at the bases that they have across West Asia? They have enough military might. Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, have their bases there. How difficult would it be to exert that military might over the Strait Of Hormuz? Speaker 1: Well, controlling it just means the ability to shut it down. Many countries would have the ability to shut down this narrow strait. The problem is that no one benefits from it, that is the Gulf States are hurt, Iran is hurt from it, The US and the global economy is hurt. So it becomes an exercise in self harm. The reason why the Iranians are doing this, the ability to shut down the Strait Of Hormuz is because The US has the ability to inflict a mass amount of destruction. It can go after civilian infrastructure, it can well, look what they've done to Tehran. It looks like, well, just, you know, the chemical warfare there. You've seen in terms of going after his fuel depots. They're going after the water supplies in Iran. You you see all these things. This is what America can do. Iran doesn't have that ability. They can't hit The United States. What they can do is cause economic pain. So, yes, I think The US and many of the Gulf States can also shut down the Strait Of Our Moose, but but but that's not that's it doesn't have any purpose. It doesn't have any reasoning. Speaker 0: Can they eradicate the Iranian control over the Strait Of Hormuz? I'm not talking about shutting it down, but just get rid of the Iranians from there and they then decide who gets to control and when it has to be shut and when it has to be opened and remained and kept open and secured. Can The US exert that kind of military might over the state of Hormuz to control it? Speaker 1: Then one need us to control a massive amount of Iran's territory, which is a huge territory with populated by 90,000,000 people. So this seems very unlikely and if closing down the Strait Of Hormuz would depend on very sophisticated weapon systems, will be one thing. But this can be shut down with drones which can be manufactured in apartments. It can be also shut down with small naval drones that is this essentially drone operated small torpedoes. There's it doesn't require a lot of high technology which means that The US can't take out very key infrastructure to prevent Iran from shutting this down, to force it to open. But with very cheap and easy to make weapons, the Iranians can shut it down and it's simply too much territory, too large population for The United States to shut down the these capabilities. So at some point, they're have to make peace with the Iranians and make it make sure it's in Iran's interest to keep the Strait Of Hormuz open because it is in their interest. The problem now is that Iran faces an existential threat. That is The US now threatens to destroy not just the government, but also the country. As Trump tweeted, we we will make it impossible for Iran to even rebuild as a nation. And this is what regime change means. There is no replacement government. This means the disintegration and destruction of Iran, a massive civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands of lives. So for them this is existential which is why they went to this great extent. They've never done this before because they never believed that they faced this kind of an existential threat. So if the war ends, the Iranians have no reason to shut this straight down. This is very horrible for them as well. So, no, I I don't think The US can control the straight or almost no one can control it completely because too many actors could shut it down. Speaker 0: Glenn, thanks so much for joining me here on game plan. Whether this war continues further, that only means and if it does, that's essentially what Iran is looking at because they're not capitulating. They're not giving up. They are taking a bad amount of beating. There's no doubt in that, but they are continuing with their counters nevertheless. And straight of hormones is their main play where they're exerting their pressure with whether it's mines, whether it's their own boats, whether it's their own military boats. Now energy experts have also warned that whether the Iran crisis proves a cure for Russia's economy, that depends directly on how long it lasts. But there is little to suggest that Iran is willing to capitulate that what we just discussed. They're inviting U. S. To continue the war on the other hand. That's what the statements from Iran suggest that we're waiting. Come on, on. Now in the midst of this, Russia is emerging as the winner as we just discussed. How long this lasts? It doesn't seem to be in the favor of The U. S. We'll need to wait and watch twelfth day and running. They expected it to last for about four to five weeks, whether it goes the distance or even longer. Let's wait. That was Glenn Deeson joining me here on Game Plan. Speaker 1: Thanks, Yvonne.

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.”

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.

Checklist: - Identify the core sequence: Putin’s draft treaty, rejection, and invasion. - Distill the recurring claim that the issue is not NATO expansion, despite strong emphasis on NATO. - Capture the claimed democracy-related actions in Ukraine cited by speakers. - Note the discussion of Putin’s aims (sphere of influence) and the the rhetorical comparisons (evil, Hitler). - Include the brief, non-substantive program switch at the end (Lindsey Graham appearance). - Preserve key phrases and the overall stance without adding new judgments. President Putin sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement, a precondition for not invading Ukraine; we didn’t sign that, so he went to war to prevent NATO across his borders. Flashback framing is used to emphasize that this is not fundamentally about NATO enlargement. Several speakers insist, repeatedly, that this is not about NATO expansion. “This is not about NATO expansion,” and similar lines are stressed, arguing that NATO is not the reason for the conflict. They acknowledge, however, that Russia’s aim is to expand its sphere of influence, with one speaker noting that the two goals are not mutually exclusive and that a Western challenge to Russian interests may have opened a path to war. Amid this, a contrasting claim is asserted: the war is about democracy in Ukraine. Ukraine is depicted as banning religious organizations, restricting books and music, and not holding elections, framed as evidence that the conflict concerns Ukraine’s democratic trajectory rather than NATO. The refrain remains that the issue is not about NATO expansion, and that NATO is a fictitious adversary used by Putin. Rhetorical intensity shifts to moral judgments about Putin. Claims of evil and sickness are voiced, with references to Putin allegedly wanting to rebuild a Soviet empire and be like Hitler. Some speakers compare him to Hitler, noting historic aggression such as the invasion of Poland and referencing him as the new Hitler, a metaphor used to describe his alleged brutality and aims. A brief exchange acknowledges complexity: “the two are not mutually exclusive”—Russia’s desire for a sphere of influence and Western challenges to Russian interests are seen as connected. The segment closes with a transition cue: Senator Lindsey Graham is thanked, followed by “Straight ahead.”

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.

If Russia invades Ukraine, Nord Stream 2 will be terminated, according to Speaker 0. Speaker 1 questions how this will be accomplished since Germany controls the project. Speaker 0 assures that they will find a way to make it happen.

Europe's energy crisis stems from allowing a 16-year-old girl to dictate energy policy, shaming the continent away from nuclear energy and hindering energy independence. This placed Europe in a fragile position, now worsened by the lack of Russian energy. The speaker claims that both a 16-year-old girl "who knew nothing" and a president whose language turned people off contributed to the crisis. The speaker asserts that Trump was right about German and European reliance on Russian gas, despite the German delegation "snickering" at his warnings. The speaker suggests that the eagerness to judge Trump's delivery led to embracing a 16-year-old with no scientific or technological background to dictate energy policy. The speaker reminds the audience that she was nominated for a Nobel Prize.

If Russia invades Ukraine, Nord Stream 2 will be canceled. The speaker assures that they will find a way to stop the project, even though Germany currently controls it.

Russia joins EU providing energy resources. Now, clearly, this clearly, this didn't happen, but Russia attacked Ukraine, and we all know that Ukraine was one of the major suppliers of grain. And when this abrupt climate change occurs, we know that there will be food shortages, and also they are worse for rare earth minerals.

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