reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Europe should have been negotiating with Russia, but now that Trump is, some are in an uproar. If the US stops sending arms and funding, the war will end. This all stems from American arrogance, going back decades to the US declaring itself the sole superpower and expanding NATO eastward, ignoring Russian concerns. The US participated in a violent coup in Ukraine in 2014, further escalating tensions. Europe needs a grown-up foreign policy, not one based on hate speech or Russophobia, but real diplomacy. NATO should have been disbanded in 1991. The US sees this as a game, but for Russia, it's about core national security.

- The conversation opens with a discussion of escalating dynamics in the Ukraine conflict as a new year begins, focusing on how the rules of war have shifted over the past four years, including the depth of NATO involvement and when actions cross into direct war. The speakers note that political leadership has largely been exempt from the war, but Russia has had opportunities to strike Ukrainian leaders that have been avoided, raising questions about future targets and the diplomatic path. - Speaker 1 argues that the political leadership has indeed been outside the war, and that voices inside Russia are growing more critical. They challenge the Western portrayal of Vladimir Putin as a dictator, suggesting Putin has restrained destruction that could hit the West, and asserting that the West and Zelenskyy have grown comfortable with exemptions. They warn that continued escalation could lead to a nuclear conflict with Europe at risk due to its geographic compactness, citing the potential fallout from attacks on American nuclear bases and the broader geopolitical consequences. - The discussion moves to the potential consequences of Western strikes on energy infrastructure and frontline energy targets, including refineries and civilian vessels. The speakers examine how Russia might respond if its assets are attacked at sea or in the Black Sea, and the possibility of Russia forcing Ukraine to lose access to the Black Sea through strategic military actions. The analysis includes a few provocative specifics: British and European actors allegedly orchestrating or enabling attacks, the role of third-country-flagged ships, and the idea that reflagging to Russian flags could be treated as an act of war by Russia. - The dialogue delves into the operational dynamics of the Mediterranean and Black Sea theatres, noting incidents such as sunflowers and other oil cargo damage, the Caspian transit company's facilities, and the implications for Turkish oil revenue and Western economies. The speakers argue that Western powers are drawing in broader international actors and that the war could expand beyond Ukraine, potentially dragging in NATO ships and submarines in a conflict at sea. They warn that if escalation continues, it could trigger a broader, more destructive war in Europe. - The conversation shifts to the likely trajectory of the battlefield, with Speaker 1 offering a grim assessment: the Donbas front and the Zaporozhye region are nearing collapse for Ukrainian forces, with Russian forces dominating missile and drone capabilities and outmaneuvering on three axes. The analysis suggests that within two to three months, upper-river-front areas, including the Zaporozhzhia and surrounding Donbas fronts, could be fully compromised, leaving only a few large urban pockets. The absence of civilian protection and the encirclement of cities would accelerate Ukrainian withdrawals and surrender, while Russia could enhance pressure on remaining fronts, including Donbas and Sumy, Kharkiv, and Dnieper regions, as weather and terrain favor Russian movements. - The speakers discuss the impact of collapsing command posts and morale, likening the abandonment of Gudai Poia to a sign of impending broader collapse, with open terrain making Ukrainian forces vulnerable to rapid Russian breakthroughs. They suggest that strategic fortifications will be overwhelmed as the front line collapses and supply lines are severed, with a predicted sequence of encirclements and city sieges. - The US role is analyzed as both a negotiator and strategist, with the assertion that the United States has long led the proxy dimension of the conflict and continues to influence targeting and weapons delivery. The discussion questions the coherence of US policy under Trump versus Biden, arguing the conflict remains a US-led enterprise despite attempts to reframe or outsources it. The speakers describe the US as hedging its bets through ongoing military support, budgets, and intelligence cooperation, while insisting that Ukraine remains a core objective of US hegemony. - A critical examination of European Union leadership follows, with strong claims that the EU is increasingly tyrannical and undemocratic, sanctioning dissidents andSuppressing speech. The dialogue condemns the deplatforming of individuals and argues that the EU’s leadership has undermined diplomacy and negotiated peace, instead pushing toward a broader confrontation with Russia. The speakers suggest that several European countries and elites are pursuing escalating policies to maintain power, even at the risk of deepening European instability and economic collapse. - The conversation ends with reflections on broader historical patterns, invoking Kennan’s warnings about NATO expansion and the risk of Russian backlash, and noting the potential for the EU to fracture under pressure. The participants acknowledge the risk of a wider conflict that could redefine global power and economic structures, while expressing concern about censorship, deplatforming, and the erosion of diplomacy as barriers to resolving the crisis. They conclude with a cautious note to prepare for worst-case scenarios and hope for, but not rely on, better circumstances in the near term.

New York City could face devastation, making it uninhabitable for centuries if conflict escalates. The situation is critical for Russia, which feels compelled to stop NATO's advance into Ukraine, as losing this war is not an option for them. In contrast, Ukraine holds little significance for the United States, yet we risk lives in a reckless game with no real benefit. Current leaders prioritize their careers over the interests of the American people, often aligning with military networks that promote ongoing conflict. Speaking out against war comes with personal consequences, but it is essential to recognize that war does not serve the American populace.

- Democrats' spending caused inflation, and Biden's administration ignited global unrest after a peaceful period under Trump. Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal was botched, and NATO expansion talks provoked Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Opportunities for peace were rejected, leading to a prolonged war with mass casualties and depleted US stockpiles. - The US has a history of military interventions, including the bombing of Belgrade, and illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, as well as involvement in the 2014 coup in Kyiv. The US government cannot be trusted. - NATO expansion was promised not to move "one inch eastward" but Clinton signed off on plans to expand NATO to Ukraine. The US unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, leading to missile systems in Eastern Europe that Russia views as a threat. - Putin sought to force Ukraine to negotiate neutrality, aiming to keep NATO off Russia's border. The US rejected negotiations, and a draft Russia-US security agreement proposing no NATO enlargement. - Germany has aligned with the US, supporting NATO expansion, but previously had an independent foreign policy. Merkel knew NATO expansion was a bad idea but gave in to US pressure. - The US is in a hot war with Russia, with US personnel on the ground in Ukraine. Russia could disable critical American infrastructure. - The war in Ukraine is a US-Russia conflict provoked by the US with the aim of NATO enlargement. The American people have been told the opposite. - The war started in 2014 with US involvement in the overthrow of Ukraine's government. The US rejected off-ramps and continues to fund the war, resulting in Ukrainian deaths and territorial losses. - The US should negotiate with Russia, acknowledging mutual security concerns and halting NATO enlargement. - The US is trying to destroy Russia through CIA operations in Ukraine. Russia is defending its right to survive. - Globalists aim to exploit Ukraine's resources and destroy Russia. The BRICS nations are moving towards a gold-backed currency. - The US has invested billions in Ukraine since 1991 to support a democratic government. Zelenskyy's team is adding fuel to the fire. - The US blew up the Nord Stream pipeline, as promised by Biden. - The US is turning Ukraine into a de facto member of NATO.

The world is on the brink of nuclear war, with Macron and NATO preparing for conflict with Russia. The target is the west, where people are rebelling against tyranny. Soros and the CIA have been involved in Ukraine for years. It's crucial to pray for peace and take political action to prevent global catastrophe. Macron's actions mirror Napoleon's, leading to dangerous military confrontation.

Blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines means the U.S. is directly at war with the largest nuclear power, which could have consequences. Russia could sever undersea internet cables, preventing banks in London from communicating with banks in New York. This could cause economic collapse and lead to world crisis conditions. It is unknown if those responsible, like Torian Nuland, have considered these effects, or if that was the intention.

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.

According to the speaker, if Putin aims to destroy the American empire by exploiting its weaknesses and initiated the Ukraine war to accelerate its decline, and if he supports Hamas, then it can be predicted that Putin will prolong the Ukraine war without seeking peace or negotiation. The speaker claims that Ukraine is becoming a black hole for NATO, draining resources and creating discord within NATO and the United States, as Germany allegedly wants out of the conflict. The speaker asserts that Putin does not want to expand the war by attacking Poland, as this would force all of NATO to fight him. The speaker also claims that to control the situation in Ukraine, Putin needs America to fight another war to distract it.

The conflict in Ukraine is driven by globalist elites aiming to exploit the region's resources, with a focus on undermining Russia rather than supporting Ukraine. The current U.S. leadership has underestimated Russia, failing to recognize its strategic interests and the consequences of NATO's expansion. The war has financial implications, with the potential shift away from the petrodollar threatening U.S. economic stability. As Russia prepares for a significant offensive, there are concerns about U.S. military involvement in Eastern Europe, which could escalate into a larger conflict. Putin has shown restraint but may respond aggressively if Western forces intervene. The situation reflects a severe miscalculation by U.S. leadership, which is unprepared for a prolonged military engagement.

Checklist: - Identify the core timeline and security-related turning points shaping Russia–US/West relations. - Preserve the sequence of events and the key claims as stated. - Exclude filler, repetition, and off-topic discussion. - Highlight unique or surprising assertions without adding new judgments. - Translate only if needed; here, keep as original English. Putin was not anti-American or anti-West when he came to power; he wanted normal relations. Even then this did not set things on an inevitable course, but the real changes that put things in a disastrous course were on the security side. First, the expansion of NATO, then the bombing of Belgrade in 1999, seventy eight straight days of some harebrained, terrible scheme of Madeleine Albright, to break apart Serbia, which was Russia's ally, and create Kosovo and put the largest NATO military base, Bundesliga, in Kosovo to cover Southeast Europe. Putin watched that. He didn't like that at all. Then came 9/11, and Putin said, okay. We wanna cooperate with you. We can help. We also face insurgencies. We don't we don't like this. The US more or less brushed Russia off at that point. In 02/2002, The US did something even more provocative and profound, which was to abandon the anti ballistic missile treaty. This for Russia was a first class security disaster, because the ABM treaty was viewed as a protection against The US nuclear first strike, and this was viewed in an incredibly harsh way by Russia, and it is a massive danger. Then immediately in 2003 came the Iraq invasion over Russia's absolute objections over the UN Security Council, absolute objections. Then in 2004 came a NATO enlargement to seven more countries, including the three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, including two Black Sea countries, Bulgaria and Romania, and including two Balkans countries, Slovakia and Slovenia. So by 02/2007, then the the temperature was up to here, and president Putin gave at the Munich Security Conference a very strong message. Stop this. Stop this. You are pressing right up against our red lines. Do not go further. And then famously, in 02/2008, The US announced a policy that had actually been adopted fourteen years earlier, but it made it public, which was the demand that NATO would enlarge to Ukraine and to Georgia in the Caucasus. And this for Russia was unbelievable. Now Russia would be surrounded by NATO in the Black Sea region. And European leaders at the time called me privately. What is your president doing? This is so reckless, so provocative. By the way, many of these same leaders now are completely mum. We love The United States. This has nothing to do with NATO. This war, of course, it's about NATO. The whole thing is about NATO. It's always been about NATO. And this was true in 02/2008. And then quickly to bring the story up to date, in 02/2011, again, these neocons doubled down. We're gonna overthrow Syria, where Russia happens to have a a naval base. We're going to overthrow Libya, where Russia has an ally. And we then took steps and in 2014 overthrew the government of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, on 02/22/2014. This was a coup in which The US played a significant role. Sad to say, I saw some of it with my own eyes, which I did not wanna see, but I did see some of it with my own eyes. The US was up to its neck in that coup. And of course, the Russians knew it. They even did us a favor of intercepting Victoria Nuland's phone call with the The US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeffrey Piot, who's now a senior state department official. Victoria Nuland's my colleague at Columbia University, unbelievably.

This video claims that the ongoing conflict between the US, NATO, and Russia is an American war against Russia and Europe. The speaker suggests that the objective of the neocons is to deindustrialize Europe and make it subservient to the US. They warn that if the current tactics fail, the situation could escalate dangerously. The speaker cites examples of Libya and Iraq to support their argument, claiming that NATO has not historically promoted peace and security.

Moving NATO forces, including American troops, closer to Russia's borders would escalate tensions and increase the risk of war. It is crucial to understand that Russia will not back down, as this is a matter of existential importance due to past events. It is not just Putin who holds power, but a political class with their own opinions. The majority of the public supports Russian policy, making it unlikely for Putin to compromise or retreat if faced with military confrontation.

The world is resetting, with the collapse of the post-war order and NATO looming due to the US sabotaging Germany's Nord Stream energy source. This act, labeled as industrial sabotage and the largest man-made CO2 emission in history, has strained the US-Germany relationship. The impact on Germany's economy may lead to a rift in NATO, as the US risks losing its key ally in Western Europe.

The speaker believes European globalist elites are in a panic because they realize the U.S. is no longer following the same path, and there is no future in Ukraine. Ukraine will never be a NATO member, and no one will go to war with Russia. European armies are "boutique forces" not designed for serious war. The leaked German military discussion is tragic and suggests a decline in professionalism. The conversation was amateurish, with no appreciation for the gravity of providing Taurus missiles to Ukraine, which risks a serious war by attacking Russian territory with Western assistance. Putin has made it clear that Berlin could face similar attacks if such actions occur.

Putin's intention in the war wasn't to take over Ukraine, but to keep NATO, meaning the United States, off Russia's border. After the Soviet Union's end in 1991, an agreement stated NATO wouldn't move eastward, but the US decided to expand NATO eastward, formally deciding in 1994 to include Ukraine and Georgia. NATO enlargement began in 1999, upsetting Russia. By 2008, the US pushed for NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia, which Russia protested, drawing a parallel to a hypothetical military base on the US border. In 2014, the US actively worked to overthrow Yanukovych. Putin's intention was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality, which initially occurred, but Ukraine withdrew from the agreement, reportedly due to US influence. The US aimed to isolate Russia by controlling the Black Sea, viewing it as a proxy war, while the consequences included significant Ukrainian casualties.

This war isn't about Ukraine; it's about destroying Russia, a miscalculation based on outdated assumptions about Russia's weakness. Ignoring Russia's concerns about NATO expansion and the 2014 Ukrainian government change led to this conflict. The globalist elite, seeking to exploit Ukraine's resources, are losing. This war has significant financial implications, threatening the petrodollar and potentially leading to a shift towards gold-backed currencies. A major Russian offensive is anticipated. US intervention in Western Ukraine would escalate the conflict into a full-fledged war, a risk given America's current military readiness issues and recruitment challenges. Russia's goals were to protect its population in Eastern Ukraine, prevent Crimea from becoming a US naval base, and prevent Ukraine from becoming a hostile actor. The current situation is a result of a failure to negotiate and address Russia's legitimate concerns.

NATO is accused of exaggerating the Russian threat to intimidate others. The speaker denies any interest in invading Poland or any other country, stating that it is merely fear-mongering. They emphasize that getting involved in a global war would be illogical and lead to destruction. The speaker believes that Russia is being used as a tool to extract more money from US and European taxpayers. The goal is to weaken Russia in the Ukrainian conflict.

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

Diplomacy is difficult but necessary to avoid nuclear war. The U.S. is running out of options with Russia because it underestimated the Russian economy and civilization. Some U.S. Senators believed Russia was merely a gas station with nuclear weapons, which was an absurd assessment. Sanctions were levied, and Russia was cut off from SWIFT, but ultimately, the U.S. hurt itself more than it hurt Russia.

The war is fundamentally about security for Russia, not territory. Since 1992, Russia has opposed NATO's presence in Ukraine due to historical invasions. Promises made during the Soviet Union's dissolution to not expand NATO eastward have been broken, leading to tensions. In 2014, the U.S. supported the overthrow of Ukraine's elected government, inviting NATO, which prompted Russian responses. Attempts at peace, like the Minsk Accords and later negotiations in 2022, were undermined by Western interference. The conflict has resulted in significant casualties, and the U.S. has spent substantial resources on it, which could be better used domestically. Trump aims to resolve the situation, preferring negotiation over conflict, while Russia's fears of being attacked through Ukraine have been validated by recent developments.

The Ukraine conflict didn't begin with Putin's 2022 invasion; it's rooted in broken promises dating back to 1990. The US, despite assurances to Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand eastward, violated this agreement, starting with NATO expansion in 1999. This was followed by NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 and the placement of missile systems in Eastern Europe, viewed by Russia as a direct threat. Further US involvement included the 2004 and 2014 Ukrainian regime changes. Despite Putin's initial pro-Western stance and his 2021 proposal for a security agreement barring NATO expansion, the West's continued support for Ukraine escalated the conflict. The narrative of Putin as a madman is a misrepresentation; this is a complex geopolitical game with potentially devastating consequences.

Many within the national security apparatus opposed NATO expansion, fearing it would provoke Russia. Even Cold War figures like George Kennan warned against antagonizing Russia, predicting a Russian reaction that would be used to justify further expansion. In 2008, current CIA Director Burns, then ambassador to Russia, sent a cable to Condoleezza Rice, titled "Nyet Means Nyet," relaying unanimous concerns from Russians across the political spectrum that Ukrainian entry into NATO was a red line. He warned of potential instability, violence, or even civil war. Despite this, NATO announced intentions to include Ukraine and Georgia, leading to the war in Georgia. The expansionist policy, driven by the same neocons who sought to remake the Middle East, has brought us closer to World War III and nuclear war.

The speaker discusses potential conflicts in Ukraine, Crimea, the Caucasus, and NATO's involvement. They criticize the West for instigating wars and claim that NATO's main goal is war with Russia. The speaker portrays the West as a decaying continent that thrives at the expense of the rest of the world, sending troops to the East while enjoying luxury. They argue that Western countries initiate wars and then talk about democracy.

The NATO Summit in Madrid was criticized for being a platform for the military industrial complex. NATO is seen as a war machine rather than a defense alliance, with examples like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya being cited. Its main purpose is to defend US hegemony and maintain a unipolar world system. The war in Ukraine is seen as a proxy war between the US and Russia, both countries being dominated by oligarchs. The majority of European citizens desire peace instead of punishing Russia, but NATO seems to prioritize conflict. The speaker questions the true intentions of the EU.

Glenn: Welcome back. We are joined today by Professor John Mersheimer to understand what is happening in the world with this new great power rivalry and how the outcome of the Ukraine war will impact this new Cold War. Have we entered a new Cold War? Who are the players, competing interests, and the rules? Mersheimer: I think we have entered a new Cold War. We're in a multipolar system, and the United States, China, and Russia are the three great powers. The United States is certainly in a cold war with China. China is powerful and threatens to dominate East Asia, and the United States will almost certainly go to great lengths to prevent that from happening, which axiomatically creates an intense security competition in China. An intense security competition is a cold war, and the name of the game is to make sure that security competition does not turn into a hot war. We are in a cold war with the Chinese, or the Chinese are in a cold war with us. The hot war is avoided. Regarding Russia, since we moved into multipolarity, the Russians and the Chinese have been close allies against the United States. This is largely a result of the Ukraine war, which has pushed the Russians into the arms of the Chinese and caused closer Sino-Russian cooperation. The United States, through the Biden administration, was involved in a cold war with both Russia and China. Trump tried to change that, seeking good relations with Russia to form a Russia-plus-US alliance against China, but he has been unable to make that happen. The result is that the United States is basically still in a cold war with both Russia and China. The war in Ukraine has made me worry greatly that the Cold War in Europe could turn into a hot war, even as the U.S.-China relationship remains cooler so far. Glenn: European leaders hoped the United States and Europe would unite in this new Cold War, with liberal hegemony fading and a return to unity against Russia. But Ukraine has instead divided Europe. How do you explain this? Is it the US not seeing Russia as the same threat as Europeans, or a concern about pushing Russia toward China, or Europe’s costs of the partnership? Is this uniquely a Trump-era approach? Mersheimer: From an American point of view, good relations with Russia make sense. China is the peer competitor, and the United States wants to pivot to East Asia to prevent China’s dominance. Russia is the weakest of the three great powers and not a major threat to Europe. The Americans believe Europe can deal with Russia, freeing them to focus on China. Europe, by contrast, is threatened by Russia’s proximity and thus prioritizes Russia. NATO expansion into Ukraine is seen by many Europeans as a disaster, poisoning Russia–Europe relations, making Europe deeply committed to using Ukraine to weaken Russia. The transatlantic alliance becomes strained, especially with Trump raising the possibility of leaving NATO. Europeans fear losing the American pacifier that keeps centrifugal forces in check, which would complicate European coordination with Russia. Glenn: If the United States signals a departure, won’t Europe face greater challenges in managing Russia? And is Russia truly an empire-building threat, or is this a post-2014 narrative that intensified after February 2022? Mersheimer: Bringing Ukraine into NATO was destined to cause trouble. The crisis began in 2014, and the 2022 war is ongoing. The Ukrainians and Europeans want a security guarantee for Ukraine, essentially NATO membership, while Russia demands territory and rejects a security guarantee that would enshrine NATO’s presence near its borders. The Europeans see NATO expansion as threatening, while the Americans view Russia as the weaker power and the need to pivot to China. The controversy over responsibility for this disaster arises from competing interpretations of NATO expansion and Russian aggression. Glenn: Do you see Russia changing course soon? There has been escalation—Odessa blockades, port attacks, and targeting infrastructure. Could this signal a new stage of the war? Mersheimer: The Russians believe Ukraine is on the ropes and expect to win on the battlefield in 2026, possibly expanding fronts in Kharkiv and Sumy. They may consider increasing conventional force and possibly using nuclear weapons if the war drags on. They view the conflict as existential and fear losing, which could push them toward drastic measures to end the war. The Russians could escalate if they think they cannot win conventionally. Glenn: What are the non-nuclear options to win quickly? Could the Russians deliver a decisive conventional victory? Mersheimer: It’s a war of attrition. If Ukraine’s army is weakened, Russia could surround large Ukrainian formations, disrupt logistics, and open larger fronts. They may build up forces in the rear, potentially for a breakthrough or to deter Western escalation. The battlefield outcome may determine the next steps, including whether nuclear options are considered. Glenn: How will Ukraine end? Is it a military defeat, economic collapse, or political fragmentation? Mersheimer: Ukraine is likely to be defeated on the battlefield. Its economy is in desperate shape, and losing Odessa or more territory would worsen it. Politically, Ukraine will face internal divisions once the war ends. Europe will face a broken Russia–Ukraine relationship, with some European states viewing the conflict differently. Ukraine’s demographic decline compounds its bleak outlook, and the country may become a problematic rump state. The war should have been settled earlier; the negotiators in Istanbul in 2022 could have sought a different path. Zelensky’s choice to align with Western powers and walk away from Istanbul negotiations deepened Ukraine’s predicament. Glenn: Any final reflections? Mersheimer: The war’s outcome will reshape Western unity and European security. Historians may view this as a major mistake in weakening the West. The blame for the disaster will likely be attributed in the West to Russia’s imperialism, but the expansion of NATO is also central. Europe’s economic and political landscape will be altered, and Ukraine’s future will be deeply challenging.