reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Last weekend, I was at a very expensive ski resort in the Alps, filled with wealthy Ukrainians spending lavishly. This is happening all over Europe. This money, I believe, should be ours—American taxpayer money. Furthermore, I know that a significant portion, up to half, of the arms we send to the Ukrainian military is being sold off, a lot of it ending up in the hands of drug cartels at our border. This is criminal. Our intelligence agencies are aware of this, and I believe they are profiting from it. Billions of dollars in aid are being stolen and sold to our enemies. This is unacceptable, and no one in America seems to know about it.

We fund one third of Ukraine's government, which includes salaries for teachers, janitors, and everyone else, not just the military. Meanwhile, people in our country are struggling to afford basic necessities like food and medicine. We need to focus on our own problems instead of paying for their government. Our priority should be to stop the killing and provide American leadership, rather than giving more money without any conditions.

We have an abundance of money for funding war machinery and foreign aid, like $8 billion to Ukraine. We also support Ukrainian businesses and banks with taxpayer funds. Humanitarian aid often ends up in corrupt hands due to lack of oversight.

We're emphasizing to Ukraine the value of their rare earth materials as part of our support. We expect guarantees in return for the significant financial and equipment assistance we're providing. The European nations are lagging behind in their contributions, despite the closer proximity to the conflict. They should match our support, if not contribute even more, given their substantial financial resources. We're aiming to establish a deal with Ukraine where they secure our aid with their rare earth resources and other assets.

I want to address the figures being circulated about the financial aid Ukraine has received from the U.S. I often hear numbers like $177 billion, or even $200 billion, being cited. As the President of a nation at war, I can tell you that we've received just over $75 billion. The difference is significant. This aid isn't given as cash, but primarily as weaponry. The $75 billion covers the cost of arms, training, transportation, humanitarian programs and social support. Claims that Ukraine has received $200 billion in military aid are simply untrue, and I don't know where that money is supposedly going.

This war should never have happened. Russia sought terms favorable to Ukraine, primarily to keep NATO out. Military contractors benefit from NATO expansion, ensuring a market for their weapons. Since March 2022, the U.S. has committed over $113 billion to Ukraine, with more requested, while the real beneficiaries are American defense manufacturers. Mitch McConnell suggested this funding is a money laundering scheme, with BlackRock owning many of these companies. Loans to Ukraine come with harsh conditions, including austerity and the sale of government assets, particularly valuable agricultural land. Despite the sacrifices of Ukrainians, 30% of this land has already been sold to companies like DuPont and Cargill, also linked to BlackRock. The rebuilding contracts for Ukraine have gone to BlackRock, revealing a strategy to maintain divisions among us while profiting from the conflict.

Trump implemented a loan system to help Ukraine access its $10-12 trillion worth of critical minerals, making it potentially the richest country in Europe. By supporting Ukraine, we can secure these assets for the West instead of letting Putin and China benefit. It's crucial to assist Ukraine in winning the war and not allow Putin to control these valuable resources.

Discussion on whether to send money to Ukraine. "Man, they need it." "I think we should help, but I don't have a studied answer for you... I can make an argument both ways, and half my family's Ukrainian from my grandparents." "Have you how much money have you sent to Ukraine? None. So what do you mean by we? You're the one whose family's from Ukraine. Like, why don't you send them a billion dollars?" "Because I'm trying to fix health care." "Why don't you fix their health care if you're, like, so deep? If you think we need to help, why don't you start? How about you first?" "It's like, we need to help. That's not what charity is. Forcing other people to help is not charity. Here's the good news." "Good news is all the weapons were on loan lease. We're getting it back." "And Right. Our dear president Trump has negotiated that we own half the minerals. So, he turned this horrible Into a profit center."

He believes Ukraine should be loaned money instead of given it outright. By loaning them money, they would have to pay it back if they succeed. He admires Zelensky's ability to secure large sums of money from the country, calling him a better salesman than himself.

In the discussion about the Middle East and the search for possible pathways to address the urgent problems faced by the Palestinian people and the most acute humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, the speaker highlights a central priority. The main point is that the entire process should favor a long-term settlement of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict that is based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, and it must take into account the inherent needs and wishes of the Palestinian people. This concerns the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip and its essential social infrastructure, including healthcare systems, water supply, and the establishment of reliable food security. Additionally, the speaker notes a concrete financial proposition tied to Russia’s role and its relations with the Palestinian population. Even prior to resolving questions about Russia’s participation in the composition and activity of the World Council, given Russia’s special relations with the Palestinian people, there is a suggestion that we could channel 1 billion U.S. dollars to the World Council. This funding would come from Russian assets that were previously frozen during the prior administration of the United States. In essence, the speaker is linking the pursuit of a durable peace framework—anchored in UN resolutions and attentive to Palestinian needs and desires—to practical steps in rebuilding Gaza’s vital infrastructure. At the same time, there is an initiative to redirect a substantial financial resource—1 billion dollars—from frozen Russian assets to support the World Council’s efforts, reflecting a strategic use of frozen assets in the context of international humanitarian and peace-building objectives.

We don't have any extra money to send to Ukraine, considering our massive deficit of over $1.5 trillion. Borrowing money from China to support Ukraine doesn't make sense. We don't have a rainy day fund with trillions of dollars just sitting around. Instead, we would have to borrow the money, which leads to inflation. Since Russia's war in Ukraine began, American taxpayers have already provided $113 billion to Ukraine. We have many issues in our own country that need attention before we borrow more money to fuel a war in another nation.

The speaker discusses the war in Ukraine and claims that Russia tried to settle it on favorable terms. They argue that the US spends a significant amount of money on military contracts and expanding NATO. The speaker criticizes the allocation of funds, stating that the money could have been used to address homelessness. They also mention that the war will require further expenses for rebuilding. The speaker suggests that politicians and defense manufacturers benefit from this situation, referring to it as a money laundering scheme. They question the loan given to Ukraine and its repayment prospects. The speaker highlights the loan conditions imposed, including austerity measures and the sale of government-owned assets to multinational corporations. They express concern over the ownership of these corporations, specifically mentioning BlackRock. The speaker concludes by stating that the strategy of keeping people divided allows those in power to continue their actions unchecked.

We're spending $350 billion, and Europe gets their money back as a loan, while we're just giving it away. Why didn't Biden demand equalization? Zelensky, a dictator without elections, better move fast or he won't have a country left. If he asks Biden for money, Biden says yes. What about the foreign bank accounts and the woman the FBI didn't interview? What if we started opening those bank accounts? He's compromised. I'm not saying that's happening, but it could happen.

Gilbert Doktorov and the host discuss the evolving, multi-layered negotiations surrounding the Ukraine war, stressing that talks involve more than Ukraine and Russia, extending to US-Russia dynamics and broader European and global interests. - They note that trilateral talks among Ukraine, Russia, and the US have begun, with the first phase completed. The conversation emphasizes that the US-Russia dimension is crucial because the conflict is viewed as a proxy war between NATO and Russia, and that “the US toppled the government in Ukraine” with intelligence support, military planning, weapons, and targets coordinated through backchannels. The implication is that any durable settlement would require some deal between the US and Russia to de-escalate the proxy confrontation. - On US-Russia relations, Speaker 1 identifies several dimensions: renewal or non-renewal of New START, and the functioning of embassies, as negative signs, but points to positive changes elsewhere. He highlights Kislyov’s Sunday night program remarks, noting Russia’s proposal to contribute $1,000,000,000 to become a permanent board member using frozen US assets (total US assets frozen around $5 billion in equivalent value). He mentions that Trump was asked about using frozen assets and reportedly declined, but the implication is that Moscow views this as a potential lever. Kislyov also notes that the additional $4,000,000,000 in frozen assets would be allocated to reconstruction in Palestine, and that Russia’s participation on the board would influence regional diplomacy, including with Palestinians and Israelis. - The discussion suggests that the absence of official diplomacy (e.g., embassies) does not necessarily indicate a lack of progress, arguing that backchannels between Putin and Trump are functioning well. The speakers discuss the broader context of Russia’s strategic posture, including alleged advancements in space-based and other new military capabilities that are not fully captured by New START, and the sense from Moscow that the US is preparing a space-based missile system that would enable first strikes, a point the Russians emphasize in public discourse. - On Ukraine, Zelensky’s stance is described as uncompromising: Ukraine will not cede territory and will demand security guarantees, which could undermine a neutral status. The dialogue suggests Zelensky is using a posture of firmness to buy time for negotiations, with Ukrainian leadership potentially exchanging assurances for a broader settlement that could include regime change and financial support for reconstruction. - The potential for compromise is discussed in terms of strategic timing and leverage. The Russians’ primary interest is regime change, and there could be an understanding with Trump about a democratic replacement in Ukraine, possibly replacing Zelensky with a pro-Russian administration under conditions tied to substantial monetary reparations for reconstruction. The timing and mechanism, including potential referenda or buyouts, are considered critical elements that could determine the settlement’s architecture. - The European role is analyzed as increasingly fraught. Europe’s diplomatic engagement has been limited, but Moscow is open to leveraging European assets in a peace process. Lavrov’s stated position that talks with Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission leadership are unlikely, and the broader fragmentation within Europe (France, Germany, Finland, the EU leadership) are highlighted as complicating factors. There is speculation about European figures who could bridge talks, such as Finland’s Stubb, though there is skepticism about Kalas’s leadership within the EU. - The speakers speculate that Davos and Trump’s stance have reshaped European perceptions of US leadership, with European elites increasingly questioning the reliability of US-backed security guarantees. The conversation closes with an expectation that the year 2025 will be dominated by Trump as a central variable in resolving global issues, and that Moscow remains optimistic about achieving a settlement with Washington while signaling a tougher stance toward Ukraine if needed. Overall, the discussion portrays a complex, interwoven set of negotiations across US-Russia, Ukraine-Russia, and European dynamics, with backchannels, asset controls, potential regime-change considerations, and timing as key levers for reaching any settlement.

They believe that large sums of money are being stolen, particularly in Ukraine. The money is not being used for its intended purpose of fighting a legitimate war. There are suspicions of kickbacks and corruption. The goal seems to be to depopulate Ukraine for other purposes. Estimates suggest that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men have been killed or displaced, leading to a significant decrease in the population of Ukraine.

The speaker discusses the war in Ukraine and claims that Russia tried to settle on favorable terms. They argue that the expansion of NATO benefits military contractors like Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics Boeing, and Lockheed, who gain a captive market. The speaker criticizes the large amounts of money committed to Ukraine and suggests it is a money laundering scheme benefiting BlackRock, the owner of the military contractors. They also mention loan conditions imposed on Ukraine, including extreme austerity measures and the sale of government-owned assets to multinational corporations. The speaker highlights the sale of Ukrainian agricultural land to companies like DuPont, Cargill, and Monsanto, all owned by BlackRock. They conclude by stating that the strategy of keeping people divided allows those in power to continue their actions without consequence.

The EU is advocating funding Ukraine with frozen Russian assets, with EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calling it the most effective way to sustain Ukraine and proposing a €140,000,000,000 reparations loan. The EU would lend to Ukraine and expect Russia to pay via seized assets once reparations are enforced. This follows Western action since the conflict began when the US and EU froze $300,000,000,000 in Russian reserves, originally anticipated to be returned in a peace deal. But that approach has evolved. In 2024, G7 leaders provided a $50,000,000,000 loan to Ukraine, to be repaid by interest from frozen assets. That loan is described as a first step, with the EU now aiming for the full principal amid growing Western fatigue over taxpayer funding. However, full confiscation carries the risk of triggering financial warfare. With serious Western consequences, Russia could retaliate by seizing $288,000,000,000 in Western assets in Russia, including securities and real estate. Russian courts have already taken hundreds of millions from JPMorgan and German banks. Even more, Russia might sue Euroclear, the Belgium-based holder of most frozen assets, which manages $40,000,000,000,000 globally, in courts such as Dubai or Hong Kong wind, potentially allowing Russia to seize Euroclear's worldwide assets, causing panic and destabilizing Western finance. Moscow has warned Belgium of liability. Beyond that, such moves would erode trust in the dollar and euro among emerging markets. China, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia oppose the plan. Fearing their reserves, alongside central banks, are shifting to gold, this opposition could hasten such a shift. Politically, the plan removes one of the incentives Russia has demanded for negotiations—recovering $300,000,000,000. Without that incentive, Moscow would push for total victory, while the EU's plan risks self-inflicted economic chaos and an extended conflict. Subscribe to New Rules Geopolitics to unlock cutting edge insights on global power plays.

This war never should have happened. Russia tried to settle with terms beneficial to Ukraine and us, mainly keeping NATO out. Military contractors want new NATO countries because it forces them to buy weapons from specific companies like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed, creating a trapped market. We've committed billions to Ukraine, money that could have housed every homeless person in the US. Mitch McConnell admitted this money largely goes to American defense manufacturers, essentially a money laundering scheme. BlackRock owns these companies. The "loan" to Ukraine will never be repaid. The conditions include extreme austerity and the sale of government-owned assets, including its valuable agricultural land, to multinational corporations like DuPont, Cargill, and Monsanto, which are also owned by BlackRock. BlackRock even got the contract to rebuild Ukraine. They're doing this openly because they keep us divided and fighting each other.

The speaker points out that the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the US is $12 billion, while Ukraine receives 12 times that amount in one year. The speaker mentions that even after the war in Ukraine ends, the US will spend half a trillion dollars on rebuilding the country, with contracts for rebuilding being even larger than war contracts. The speaker highlights a statement made by Mitch McConnell, who suggests that the money sent to Ukraine actually goes to US military contractors, benefiting the country. The speaker implies that this reveals a money laundering scheme involving companies like Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Lockheed.

Giving two-thirds of the funding as debt creates a trap for Ukraine, which already struggles to repay existing debts. This situation effectively leads to the colonization of Ukraine, as foreign corporations, particularly from Europe and America, are now allowed to purchase large tracts of land. Since the IMF's 2021 loan, these corporations have acquired more land in Western Ukraine than the Russians have in the east. This debt burden undermines Ukraine's sovereignty and raises questions about the commitment to the welfare of ordinary Ukrainians. Politicians supporting the ongoing conflict have not shown personal sacrifice, as none have fought or sent their children to the front lines.

Putin knew that Ukraine was stealing money we sent them when Biden was in office. Trump will stop that, and the fighting will stop. I stand by my statement that Trump will stop us from throwing money down the drain in a war we have nothing to do with. Their own president said they don't know where half the money went. You're paying off the war machine to prolong this war, and men are dying because of it. That's wrong and Trump will stop it. At the beginning of the war, we were on both sides with gas contracts with Russia and giving money to Ukraine. Putin is responsible for the war. But why isn't there outrage about China's mistreatment of people? Because everything is made in China, and it's all about the dollars.

We need funds for Ukraine's reconstruction, and one solution is to utilize Russian assets. If Russia has caused damage, we can use the money from those assets to rebuild Ukraine. This is a key point I want to discuss.

Speaker 0 argues that “they’re making hundreds of billions of dollars a year more,” and that this funding emboldens them to give their proxies “weapons, money, and the vigor to attack the Jewish state,” which he says is unacceptable in the international community. He sets the stage for a connection between large flows of money and aggressive action by those proxies. Speaker 1 responds by asserting that “the only reason that Hamas attacked Israel, the only reason they’ll able to is because of increased Iranian funding,” and adds that Hamas is funded “in part” by Iran but that Hamas also receives funding from various other sources. He names possible funders such as Iran and Qatar and questions who funds Iran, suggesting multiple sponsors. Speaker 0 presses the point with a direct question, “Who funds Iran?” prompting Speaker 1 to identify Qatar as a potential funder. Speaker 0 repeats and confirms, expressing uncertainty about specifics by saying, “Buffans? Okay. Who from Hamasi? Of course they do. Right?” Speaker 1 continues with uncertainty, noting that “they were transferring a whole lot of money to the Gaza Strip” and references the Gaza funding issue as a major scandal associated with Netanyahu, described as “one of the big scandals that Netanyahu was involved in,” tied to letting that money pass through to the Gaza Strip, though he adds “I don’t know this is supervision.” In the dialogue’s core, Speaker 0 posits a logical implication: “If Iran gets more money, that’s good for Hamas. Right? You agree on that? Come on.” Speaker 1 responds with a cautious “Broadly speaking,” and Speaker 0 presses further, urging Speaker 1 to concede one point, addressing him by name, Steven. Overall, the exchange centers on the linkage between international funding, particularly Iranian and Gulf-state money, to Hamas and its activities, with attention to the claim that large monetary flows empower proxies to threaten Israel, and with references to past allegations about the transfer of funds to Gaza and the political fallout surrounding those funds.

Mitch McConnell was questioned about sending $113 billion to Ukraine, claiming it's really for American defense, implying a money laundering scheme. Tim Scott referred to it as a loan, but it's unlikely to be repaid. This "loan" allows for conditions that enforce austerity in Ukraine and require the sale of government assets, particularly agricultural land, to multinational corporations. Notably, 30% of this land has already been sold to companies like DuPont, Cargill, and Monsanto, all linked to BlackRock. Additionally, BlackRock received the contract to rebuild Ukraine. This strategy of division keeps the public distracted and fighting among themselves, preventing them from recognizing what's happening.

I recently attended a meeting in an expensive Alpine town, overwhelmingly populated by wealthy Ukrainians spending lavishly. This is a pattern across Europe; the richest people are Ukrainian. This money, I believe, should belong to American taxpayers. Furthermore, I know that a significant portion, possibly half, of the arms we send to Ukraine are being sold, some ending up with drug cartels on our border. Our intelligence agencies are aware of this. The media reports Zelensky's denials, but the New York Times could easily order Ukrainian weapons online—this is a fact. The official death toll is likely a lie; the entire situation is a deception. Sending billions in aid without tracking its use is irresponsible, and the possibility of these weapons being used against us is terrifying. This situation mirrors the issues we faced with the Mujahideen in the 80s. The lack of transparency and accountability is appalling.