TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Benghazi was a logistics hub for arming anti-Assad terrorists. Russia exposed this operation by attacking the CIA center, putting a stop to it. The Western media didn't report on it. The efforts to overthrow Assad continue, but now weapons are primarily coming from Croatia. This poses a threat to Russia, so they are waging war against America by targeting our weak economy, specifically the oil-backed dollar.

I left troops in Syria to take the oil, not to protect. Maybe we should take it, but we have the oil. Military experts disagree with Trump's plan to take oil from Iraq, saying it's dangerous and irrational. This could be his downfall.

If the Soviet Union and the PLO were removed, international terrorism would collapse. Removing Saddam's regime would have positive effects on the region. Regime change is desired in both Iran and Iraq. The practical question is not if Iraq's regime should be removed, but when. When asked if the U.S. should launch preemptive attacks on other nations, the answer is yes. Iraq and Iran are competing to be the first to achieve nuclear weapons, and Libya is also rapidly trying to build an atomic bomb. These three nations must be stopped to halt Iran's conquest, subjugation, and terror. Everyone stands with Israel.

You campaigned against us, but your country is in big trouble and you are not winning. We gave you $350 billion in military equipment, without which this war would have been over in two weeks, maybe less. Say thank you to the American people. It is important for them to see what's going on. You have to be thankful. Your people are dying, you're running low on soldiers. If you can get a ceasefire right now, you take it so the bullets stop flying and your men stop dying. You say you don't want a ceasefire, but you need guarantees. You should ask your people about a ceasefire. Obama gave you sheets, and I gave you javelins to take out tanks. You gotta be more thankful because without us, you don't have any cards.

I've looked into both Assad and the opposition, but the problem is we don't know who the opposition really is. They could be even worse than Assad. We supply them with weapons and resources, but we're essentially in the dark about who they are. Why are we involved in this conflict at all? Of course, getting rid of ISIS is important, but Assad seems like the lesser of two evils. We've backed the wrong side before, and it ended in disaster. Russia seems to support Assad, so maybe we should let them handle ISIS and let them fight it out.

Speaker 0: And so, I mean, it sounds to me like that that it's leaving Iran with this choice of either rolling over, literally given everything we want, the, you know, the the nuclear enrichment, the the missiles, the proxies, etcetera, And that would buy you a little time, but then leave you utterly powerless. And the next day Speaker 1: That's right. Speaker 0: Either Israel or anybody else can come in, you would literally be helpless. And and, I mean, so we're correct me if I'm wrong, but we're offering Iran the option of either lay down and die by death later or stand firm and maybe die shortly now, but at least this way, you're gonna have some missiles to shoot back. I mean, do you see it differently? Speaker 1: No. I think you're exactly right. And, basically, we're we're inviting them to to become Qaddafi. You remember Qaddafi basically gave us a nuclear program. They basically said, fine. You know, I saw what you did in Iraq. I don't wanna end up up like that. I'll meet your terms, and we'll come to an agreement. We'll all be out. And we said, great. Now that you're defenseless, let's destroy you. Stick a bayonet up your rear rear end and shoot you in the head. Now if you're if you're the Iranian leadership, do you wanna end up like that? Look. I've always said the Iranians basically have a choice. They could be North Korea or they can be Libya. Which would you rather be? Speaker 0: That's not a choice for anybody to have to make. Speaker 1: Yeah. But that's that's the position we're putting them in. And frankly, I'm a little surprised they haven't gone for a nuclear breakout up till now. Because if they if they're looking for real security, say, okay. Fine. None no more of this nonsense. We don't wanna be Libya. We're North Korea now. Back off. Yeah. That that would make that would make sense from their point of view, wouldn't it?

Apparently, the strategy is to weaken Russia, which is essentially a state of war. The aim is to remove Putin, replace his administration, and potentially divide Russia. This stems from the neoconservative movement, which has always been anti-Soviet and anti-Russian, pushing for a strong, challenging America. However, America can't challenge Russia, especially since the U.S. military isn't ready for war. The U.S. is using the Ukrainian military as cannon fodder, fighting over pride and fear of a Russian/Chinese economic takeover. America shouldn't go to war for trade, even if it means becoming number two or three economically. The world is multipolar, but the U.S. hasn't accepted this. People don't realize how destructive even a limited war would be. The situation is much more dangerous than people realize because America is too prideful and arrogant and will be nasty when it doesn't get its way in Ukraine.

I was shocked to learn that President Obama had programs to overthrow the Syrian regime. The CIA's Timber Sycamore program armed Al Qaeda to start another regime change war in the Middle East. The DOD's train and equip program spent over half a billion dollars training "moderate rebels" who were actually aligned with Al Qaeda. Regime change wars in Syria, like in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt, risk the rise of Islamist extremists like Al Qaeda. We now have an Islamist extremist in charge of Syria who celebrated the 9/11 attack and is persecuting religious minorities like Christians. Every American deserves to know if our government supported our enemy, Al Qaeda.

Wanna get on to Ukraine. But, given that Israel is signaling it doesn't like the, Al Qaeda operative, Jelani in Damascus, and we know Tulsi Gabbard is something of an expert on Syria because she exposed the lies and the, phony war in Syria when The United States was supporting the ISIS and Al Qaeda rebels there. How do you and Trump has been very brave arguably saying, he's not gonna, start sending loads of money like Britain is to Tchelani. There's still thousands of American troops, though, in Syria. What is American Syrian policy Syria policy? America's policy towards Syria is basically Israel's policy. And what The United States was bent on doing was wrecking Syria and keeping it wrecked. That's the Israeli objective here. This is what the Israelis wanna do with Iran. They don't simply wanna do away with Iran's nuclear capability. They surely do wanna do that, but they wanna wreck Iran. They wanna turn Iran into Syria. And what the Israelis are doing in Syria is going to great lengths to make sure that Syria remains, a dysfunctional state. They don't want Syria to become, a formidable adversary. They want it to remain broken. And, of course, The United States will support the Israelis in that regard. So, of course, the Israelis are not gonna allow the Americans to give huge amounts of aid to Jalani so that he can produce a viable Syrian state because that's not Israeli policy. Just look at what they're doing in Iran. I mean, excuse me, what they're doing in Lebanon. It's a similar situation.

Speaker 0: The speaker questions the pretexts for international interventions, starting with Yugoslavia. “В какой предлог? Что, санкции Совета безопасности, что ли? Где Югославия, где США? Уничтожили страну.” The speaker acknowledges internal conflict in Yugoslavia but asks who gave the right to strike the European capital, insisting, “Никто. Просто так решили,” with satellite powers following and cheering. They label this as “всё международное право.” Next, the speaker asks about the pretext for entering Iraq (referred to as “Рак”). They describe the action as “Разработка оружия массового уничтожения” used to invade, destroy the country, and create “очаг международного терроризма,” only to later claim that a mistake had been made. They recount the line: “нас разведка подвела. Ничего себе! Разрушили страну разведка подвела.” They say, “И всё объяснение,” arguing that “Оказывается, не было там никакого массового оружия поражения, никто не готовил.” They state, “Наоборот, когда-то было всё как положено уничтожили.” Finally, they ask about Syria: “А в Сирию как зашли? Что санкций Советой безопасности? Нет. Что хотят, то и делают.” The speaker contends that in Syria, as with the previous cases, the actions were taken without regard to UNSC sanctions, with force used to satisfy unspecified objectives. In summary, the speaker challenges the legitimacy of military interventions by citing Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Syria, highlighting claimed pretexts of weapons of mass destruction, UNSC sanctions, and the perceived disregard for international law, suggesting that decisions are made arbitrarily while authorities and precedents are cited as justification.

Speaker 0: In gears to Syria. Our president has said that you're backing an evil guy there. He said Assad is an evil guy. Do you believe that? Speaker 1: what? That Assad is an evil person? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: Let's talk objectively. Has Assad made mistakes? Yes, probably. And more than a few. What about the people who oppose him? Are they angels or something? Who is it that's killing people over there? Executing children? Who's cutting off heads? Are these the kind of people we should support? Speaker 0: We all saw the video of the suffering, dying children. Do you deny? Because Assad denies that those tapes are real. Do you believe those tapes are fake? Speaker 1: That's false information. As of now, we're absolutely convinced that this was a provocation. Assad did not use those weapons, and all of this was done by people who then wanted to blame him. Speaker 0: The bodies of the victims were autopsy. The autopsies were witnessed by officials from the World Health Organization and from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and they concluded that the victims were attacked with sarin gas. Are are we really to believe that the whole thing was staged, that everybody was in on it? Speaker 1: The answer is very simple, and you know it. It could have been used by someone, but not Assad.

He broke agreements, killed our people, and didn't exchange prisoners. What kind of diplomacy is that? We're trying to prevent the destruction of your country. During war, everybody has problems. You don't have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards. You're gambling with World War Three and disrespecting this country. Have you said thank you once? We are staying strong. You haven't been alone. We gave you billions and military equipment. Without it, the war would have been over in days. Just say thank you. It's important for Americans to see what's going on. You don't have the cards. Your people are dying, and you're running low on soldiers. If you could get a ceasefire, you'd take it. I want a ceasefire with guarantees. I gave you javelins, Obama gave you sheets. Be more thankful because without us, you don't have any cards.

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.

"Please explain to me the difference between Putin's invasion of Ukraine and our invasion of Iraq." "Somebody tell me what was different." "Why was ours considered okay and Russia's not?" "The only they're for the same thing, regime change." "Same thing." "We wanna change who is governing Iraq." "Putin wanted to change who is governing Ukraine." "Now don't get me wrong." "I didn't support either war." "They both suck." "But everybody you notice our national media doesn't bring that up at all, do they?" "And you notice they brought up now the Fed or the international courts have made it so Putin can't travel now because he's considered a war criminal." "Let's not forget the international courts did the same thing with Bush and Cheney after the invasion of Iraq." "Why do you think George Bush can't leave The US?"

We seem to be heading to war with Iran, with little pushback from Republicans. War with Iran could mean Armageddon, with no appreciation for the implications for the US, Europe, and the Middle East. Twenty percent of the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz, and Iran has missiles that can reach 1,200 miles with precision. If we bomb Iran, our bases in Iraq and Syria will be targeted. Hezbollah has a large operation in Mexico, and their agents could cause trouble here at home. If we attack Iran, Russia will not sit by quietly. Sanctions haven't stopped Iran's military development. Our military is at a weak point. If the US enters this conflict, it will be difficult for Russia and Turkey not to also come into this fight against us.

"the CIA and Saudi Arabia together, in covert operations tried to overthrow Assad." "It was a disaster" and it "also brought in Russia." The speaker calls this "the permanent state" and says "We have made a proxy war in Syria" that has "killed 500,000 people, displaced 10,000,000," and "I predicted it seven years ago that there was no way to do this and that it would make a complete chaos." He urges, "get out." Another speaker adds, "six hundred thousand dead and 14,000,000 displaced," and says the United States should be part of the solution. He notes this happened because of us, cites "timber sycamore"—"The CIA operation together with Saudi Arabia"—"shrouded in secrecy" and "never debated by Congress, never explained." Ending the fight means stopping overthrow of a government and rebel support; "contrary to international law, contrary to the UN Charter"; risk of "an imminent confrontation with Russia." "Go to the UN Security Council ... with Russia on a strategy for ending the fight."

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.

The war in Syria originated not from Bashar Al Assad, but from a decision in Washington in 02/2011 to overthrow Assad, a desire originating from Jerusalem and the Israeli government for over 25 years, with Netanyahu aiming to reshape the Middle East in Israel's image by overthrowing opposing governments. This aligned with the CIA and the U.S. government, leading to Operation Timber Sycamore, a program where the U.S. and regional countries trained rebels, including jihadists, to overthrow the Syrian regime. This resulted in chaos and 600,000 deaths. The CIA's goal in 02/2011 was for a jihad group to take power in Syria after being armed by the U.S. Peace in the region requires real diplomacy, not CIA operations, and an end to Israel's militarization of the Middle East. The Syrian war is one of six wars Israel has promoted, including in Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. In 02/2001, Wesley Clark was shown a Pentagon paper outlining a plan for seven wars in five years. The only war that hasn't occurred is a U.S. war with Iran.

You wanted it to end immediately, and I wanted a ceasefire now, but he doesn't want a ceasefire. Now, he's a big shot because he has the US to decide. Either we end it, or we let him fight it out. Without us, he doesn't win. I'm not saying what I'm considering; I'm just telling you what I saw today. That wasn't a man who wanted to make peace, and I'm only interested if he wants to end the bloodshed.

I'm trying to end the destruction of your country through diplomacy. It's disrespectful to litigate this in front of the American media, especially considering you're forcing conscripts to the front lines due to manpower issues. You should thank the President for trying to resolve this conflict. During war, everyone faces problems, even you. However, you are in no position to dictate what we're going to feel, we are going to feel very good and very strong. You've put yourself in a bad position from the beginning of the war, you don't have the cards right now. You're gambling with the lives of millions and risking World War Three. It's disrespectful to this country. Have you even said thank you? You campaigned for the opposition, offer some appreciation for the United States and the President who is trying to save your country.

Russia has 6,000 nuclear warheads, 1,600 that are deployed. Russia is under attack by The US and UK. I say that because while Ukraine nominally presses the button or, makes the attack, it's US weaponry, US satellites, US intelligence, US tracking, US logistics. And so we have an active hot war going on right now. It's insane. So far, no American president, has had, either the bravery or the decency to tell the truth, which is that from the time of the end of the Soviet Union in December 1991 until now, The US has been on a campaign to weaken Russia, to divide Russia, to surround Russia, to put US military all around Russia, to break apart Russia if possible, to sanction Russia to its knees, whatever it is. That's been The US campaign. So if this war is gonna stop, The US has to stop its campaign against Russia. That's the story.

The situation in Ukraine is dangerous and escalating. Joe Biden's actions have brought us close to nuclear war, as he is sending American tanks. It is crucial for all parties involved to seek a peaceful resolution before this catastrophe leads to World War 3, which would be a nuclear war. If I were in the White House, Russia would have never invaded Ukraine. We must demand peace in Ukraine now, and it is actually easy to achieve.

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.

If you're on Twitter, be warned: gruesome videos from Syria are circulating, a result of CIA intervention and tax dollars funding "moderate rebels." These rebels are now attacking minority communities that Bashar al-Assad used to protect. Figures like Barry Weiss, John Bolton, the Bushes, Obama, and Hillary Clinton bear responsibility, as this was their CIA project under the Obama administration, aimed at turning Syria into another Libya. They achieved their goal: a failed state with torture and human sacrifice. This could have been prevented, as past interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya failed. The situation worsened after Trump's election. Biden gave the green light before Trump took office. The CIA approached Trump in 2016 to overthrow Assad, but he refused. The corporate media and establishment are also culpable in this disaster.

I'm not sure what happened, but he didn't break it off with me; he wants to make a deal. The problem is I've empowered you, and without the United States, you don't have the leverage. Your people are brave, but you either make a deal, or we're out. If we're out, you'll have to fight it out, and it won't be pretty because you don't have the cards. Once we sign a deal, you're in a better position, but you're not acting thankful, which isn't nice. I think we've seen enough; this will be great television. We'll see what we can do and stay out of the way.