TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses the US plan to expand NATO to Ukraine, despite Ukrainian opposition. Viktor Yanukovych's neutrality stance angers the US, leading to a crisis and coup in 2013. US involvement in the insurrection is evident, with senators openly supporting the demonstrators in Kiev. Victoria Nuland's actions, including distributing cookies, further highlight US interference in Ukraine.

As secretary of state, I was involved in the efforts to remove a prosecutor. The whole administration, including Obama, the vice president, and the ambassador, worked towards this goal. We believed that for Ukraine to succeed and overcome the revolution, known as the Maidan, it was crucial to get rid of that prosecutor. And they succeeded in doing so.

The truth about US interference in Ukraine, dating back to WWII when CIA worked with Ukrainian Nazis, led to the rise of extremist groups like Svoboda and Right Sector. Yanukovych's refusal of IMF's offer sparked a US-backed coup orchestrated by the State Department and Joe Biden. The push for war against Russia serves globalist interests, not patriotism.

The Svoboda Party, formerly known as the Social Nationalist Party, has ties to Nazi Germany and its leader, Holitanybok, has openly targeted Jews and ethnic Russians. Despite being condemned as racist and antisemitic, the US government worked with them, thinking they could control the situation. Victoria Nuland from the US State Department met with Svoboda and was caught on a leaked call discussing who they would put in power. They debated whether Klitschko should be in the government and ultimately decided against it. The focus was on manipulating the situation in their favor.

I went to Kyiv to announce a $1 billion loan guarantee. I had asked Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk to take action against the state prosecutor, but they didn't. They argued that I didn't have the authority to withhold the money. I insisted that they call the president and told them they wouldn't get the money unless the prosecutor was fired. Eventually, they agreed and the prosecutor got fired.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify and preserve the core causation chain from 1990 to the present. - Retain all direct claims about NATO expansion, treaties, regime changes, and key US actions. - Highlight unique or surprising elements (intercepted calls, personal connections, blunt quotes). - Exclude repetition, filler, and off-topic discussions. - Do not judge the claims; present them as stated, without added qualifiers. - Translate any non-English nuances into concise English where needed. - Aim for 395–494 words. According to the speaker, the Ukraine war is not a Putin-initiated attack as framed by common narratives, but a long sequence beginning in 1990. James Baker (Secretary of State) told Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move eastward if Germany unified; Gorbachev agreed. The speaker asserts the US then “cheated” with a 1994 Clinton plan to expand NATO to Ukraine, arguing that neoconservatives took power and NATO enlargement began in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Russia initially cared little, seeing no direct border threat beyond Kaliningrad, and NATO’s bombing of Belgrade in 1999 aggravated Moscow. Putin’s leadership is described as initially pro-European; he even considered joining NATO when a mutually respectful relationship existed. After 9/11, Russia supported the US in counterterrorism, but two decisive later actions altered it. In 2002 the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which the speaker says triggered US missile deployments in Eastern Europe—Aegis systems—prompting Russia to fear a decapitation strike from missiles near Moscow. He claims the US then invaded Iraq in 2003 on phony pretenses. In 2004–2005 a “soft regime change operation” in Ukraine (the first color revolution) installed leaders connected to US interests; the speaker recalls advising Ukraine’s government in the early 1990s and knows Yushchenko personally. Yanukovych won Ukraine’s 2009 election and pursued neutrality; the US pressed NATO expansion despite Ukrainian public preference for neutrality amid ethnic divides. On 22 February 2014, the US actively participated in overthrowing Yanukovych, with a leaked call between Victoria Nuland and Jeffrey Pyatt discussing a preferred next government (names like Yatsenyuk/Yats, and influence from Biden) and vowing Western support; the speaker asserts the Americans told Yanukovych to fight on, promising “we’ve got your back” but “we don’t have your front,” pushing Ukraine into front lines and contributing to a high death toll—“six hundred thousand deaths now of Ukrainians since Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell them to be brave.” The speaker contends the war is misrepresented as a madman invading Europe and criticizes it as “bogus, fake history” and a PR narrative by the US government; he claims NYT suppressed his commentary and argues the US ignores prudence in favor of open-ended enlargement. He cautions against pursuing China and Taiwan, warning about nuclear risk if a power challenges the US. He notes Putin’s 2021 security proposal to bar NATO enlargement, the White House’s rejection of negotiations, and NATO’s “open door” stance, which he decries as unstable. The narrative concludes with a focus on preventing further escalation and avoiding a nuclear confrontation.

The opposition in Ukraine includes extremist groups like Svoboda, which has ties to Nazi Germany. The leader of Svoboda, Holitanybok, has openly targeted Jews and ethnic Russians. Despite being condemned by the EU, the US government backed these extremists, thinking they could control the situation. Victoria Nuland from the US State Department was caught on a leaked call discussing who they would put in power. They didn't think Klitschko should be part of the government.

As secretary of state, I was deeply involved in getting rid of a prosecutor. The whole administration, including Obama, the vice president, and the ambassador, worked towards this goal. We knew that for Ukraine to succeed and win the revolution, they had to remove that prosecutor, and they did.

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.

I believe our role, including sanctions and threats, partly forced Yanukovych from office. We've been very involved in supporting the new government in Ukraine. The clear US position has aided this regime change. If this is a peaceful transition, the US will be seen as a great friend. This is about supporting Ukraine in determining its future. While some see this as a US-Russia conflict, it's about supporting Ukraine's wishes. The US has an economic interest too. We're negotiating a trade agreement with Europe. With Ukraine potentially joining the EU, it could mean billions in economic opportunities for the US. We shouldn't hide this interest.

I declare for those who will watch or are watching this information: Mr. Pruchinov, Mr. Yatsenyuk, Mr. Tekhnebok, and those with them — I know openly and reliably that these are funded agents of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. In addition, Mr. Yatsenyuk is the first deputy head of the Freemason lodge in Ukraine, and its head, if anyone doesn’t know, is Mr. Pinchuk, the son-in-law of Mr. Kuchma. All the deceptions that were carried out and all the commands of Mr. Yanukovych were simply puppetry in the hands of Mr. Honchuk, the best and Kravchuk. They sold him as well. They gave him commands—don’t let Berkut in, then let Berkut in, then storm or not storm—and then, when people were finally allowed to take up arms, their vile betrayal. Primarily it’s the work of Mr. Kravchuk and Mr. Kuchma. Not many know that Mr. Kuchma, after the so-called victory in the Maidan revolution, was targeted thanks to Mr. Pinchuk. The Americans lifted the arrest on his accounts, and he lives freely. And after they sold Yanukovych, I’m not saying he’s good; I’m not his admirer. He was wrong in many ways. Although he remains the legitimate president, whether we want it or not, whether those stinkers-who-smell, or not. I’m tired of listening, of not listening. Anyone can insult a person. But first we must understand what prompted this. What was the motive? The main lawlessness was committed by Mr. Rinat Akhmetov, Mr. Kolomoyskyi, the head of the World Jewish Congress, Mr. Fer t ash, and others. All these oligarchs. At first, it looked like two clans fighting for a feeding trough, as in 2005. Now it’s simply a direct occupation of Ukraine by the United States through stand-ins. I’m not afraid of this; I have enough strength to defend myself. But my wife remains there. And not only my wife. There are many people who want to threaten Russia. Many want help from Russia to cleanse Holy Rus from the invasion of red-brown plague and American Zionists. I am not an anti-Semite, God forbid; I am an internationalist. I was raised in the spirit of Soviet internationalism. But let people not confuse. I have no hatred for simple Jews. They are not to blame. They also endure from their landlords, so to speak, Orthodox Jewish organizations, Hasidim, in particular, organizations like Chabad, which rule this black feast. So let no one accuse me of anti-Semitism. But, in the end, I can say, as they say in Odessa, who are Semites and who are anti-Semites. You know? No, tell me. Semites are those who drink until seven; anti-Semites are those who drink after seven. This is how they say in Odessa. I love Odessa humor, genuine old Odessa humor. But I hate what they do. Imagine a scene on the Maidan: representatives of the Greek-C Catholic Church stand; representatives of the so-called autocephalous, self-proclaimed church, who during the war walked around showing to the Germans, to those in the family at the front children, in the partisans and so on. Also the so-called False Patriarchate of Kyiv, which papal Rome did not recognize in its time, led by Mr. Mykhailo Denysenko, who still calls himself Filaret, and is anathemized for sacrilegious acts and many other offenses against the church. Now he tries to join a secret assembly with Right Sector, in particular with such fascist organization as Svoboda. This is their true name; the Social-National Party of Ukraine. So that all may know: Svoboda is simply because they realized they cannot appeal on their own to politics, so they will go under their true banner. Then there is a law draft, a deputy-Briton, I think; I’m not strong with names, but I know it is 100 percent the bill banning the Moscow Patriarchate. Prohibition of the Russian language in Ukraine, up to criminal prosecution. All this is the work of ultraright forces with the support of American fascists, so to speak. World imperialism. That’s it. Maybe I’m not a skilled speaker, but I’ve had enough. I’ll repeat: it sounds banal. Thank you very much.

We believe our sanctions and the threat of more sanctions played a role in Yanukovych leaving office. We've been actively involved in supporting the new government, and the US has been seen as a friend in helping this transition happen peacefully. This is about supporting Ukraine in determining its own future. While it might seem like a US versus Russia situation, it's about supporting Ukraine's wishes. The US also has an economic interest, as Ukraine's potential inclusion in the EU could greatly benefit our trade agreement with Europe. Yanukovych lost legitimacy by using force against peaceful protests. Foreign leaders were there to stand up for the right to protest. While some radical elements exist within the opposition, the movement largely rejects those ideas. We're confident the new government will be inclusive, and we'll work to ensure those radical elements don't dominate.

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.

I believe our sanctions and threats played a role in Yanukovych's departure. We've been actively involved in Ukraine, and our clear stance has aided the change in regimes. If this transition is peaceful, the U.S. will be seen as a great friend. This is about supporting Ukraine's self-determination. While some see it as a U.S.-Russia struggle, it's about supporting Ukraine's wishes. We also have an economic interest, as Ukraine's potential inclusion in the EU could boost trade with the U.S. Yanukovych was elected, but he lost legitimacy by using force against peaceful protests. Our presence, like that of foreign ministers, was to defend human rights. While radical elements exist within the opposition, the movement largely rejects them. We'll work to ensure these elements don't dominate the new government.

The speaker notes that they are not the pen pal but the phone pal of Poroshenko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and now the speaker themselves. For the last four years, they have been on the phone two to three hours a week with those folks. There is an overwhelming instinct in Europe to say, before you guys became president, this was owned by Russia anyway. They ask, what difference does it make? Why are you making us engage in these sanctions? The speaker recalls last year, they were authorized to say they’d do the second tranche of a billion dollars, and he didn’t fire his chief prosecutor. Because the speaker has the confidence of the president, they were there. They said, “I’m not signing it. Until you fire him, we’re not signing it.” They clarified, “We’re not doing it.” Until you form a new government and you actually bring in someone who will move on this, they’re not playing. It’s not because they’re trying to play hardball, but because they know if they give an excuse to the EU, there are at least five countries right now that want to say, wooah, want out. What they are putting together now is a basic detailed road map of who goes first and who goes second. There are two pieces: one is the security guarantees that are to flow from Russia, and two, the political steps that Ukraine has to take. Some of the steps are very difficult to take. They’ve already done the energy piece, they’ve done some other things, but the point is that when you say the dumb boss is gonna have a special status and you’re gonna amend your constitution, it’s like saying, okay, you know, Texas and Wyoming—Texas is gonna have a special status that we don’t want because we want Mexico to have more influence in Texas. And we’re gonna pass that through the United States Congress. So there are some really tough stuff they’ve gotta do. They’re willing, and the speaker is convinced they will do it.

We believe our sanctions and threats played a role in Yanukovych's removal. Now, we must support the new government. The US has been actively involved, with senators and State Department members present. Our clear stance has aided regime change. While some criticize our selective involvement, a peaceful transition in Ukraine will position the US as a key ally. This is about enabling Ukraine to determine its future. While it may seem like a US-Russia conflict, it's about supporting Ukraine's wishes. The US has an economic interest too as Ukraine potentially joining the EU could significantly benefit US trade. Yanukovych's use of force against peaceful protests is the reason we engaged. While radical elements exist within the opposition, the movement largely rejects them. We are confident the new government will be inclusive, and we'll ensure radical elements don't dominate.

I am not the pen pal, but the phone pal of Poroshenko and Arseny Yacineuk and now the speaker. For the past 4 years, I have been on the phone with them for 2 to 3 hours a week. Some in Europe argue that Russia already controlled Ukraine before these presidents came into power, so why bother with sanctions? Last year, I was authorized to say that we would provide $1 billion, but only if the chief prosecutor was fired. We are not playing games, we know that if we give the EU an excuse, at least 5 countries will want to leave. We are working on a detailed roadmap for Ukraine's political steps and security guarantees from Russia. It won't be easy, but I am convinced they will do it.

When the Maidan revolution happened, I was asked to advise the new Ukrainian prime minister on the economic crisis. I flew to Kyiv, and while there, I was told that the US had financed the people at Maidan. This supposed spontaneous revolution of dignity raises some questions. Where did all the media outlets come from? Who organized this? Where did the buses come from, and who called all those people in? It was clearly an organized effort.

Nuland suggested contacting Klitschko directly, while also mentioning involving the United Nations for a political solution. The audio of this conversation was notably clear. During a visit to Independence Square in Kiev in December, Nuland and Payatt distributed food to protesters and police. This incident is embarrassing for the U.S. and gives Russia grounds to claim that the opposition is being manipulated by Washington, a claim that Barack Obama has consistently denied. The clip reportedly surfaced online, allegedly posted by the Russian deputy PM, though this has not been confirmed.

When the Maidan happened, I was asked to meet with the new Ukrainian prime minister to discuss the economic crisis. I went to Kyiv, and while I was there, I was told that the US had paid for all the people at the Maidan. People call it a spontaneous revolution of dignity, but where do all the media outlets, the organization, the buses, and the people come from? It's clear that this was an organized effort.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the role of Klitschko in the government, with Speaker 1 arguing against him joining, believing Yatseniuk is better suited for leadership with Klitschko and Tani Book on the outside. Speaker 1 thinks Yatseniuk needs to be talking to Klitschko and Tani Book four times a week. Speaker 1 mentions Seri and Blanquemun agreeing that Seri could come in Monday or Tuesday to help glue things together, adding "fuck the EU." Speaker 2 claims the US government cannot control Foboda and the right sector, stating these armed groups see the crisis as an opportunity to reshape Ukraine. The speaker references a video of right sector leader Alexander Musichko brandishing an AK 47 in parliament.

As secretary of state, I was deeply involved in getting rid of the prosecutor. The whole administration, including Obama, the vice president, and the ambassador, worked towards this goal. We knew that Ukraine needed to remove the prosecutor to succeed in the revolution. I made it clear to them that if the prosecutor wasn't fired, they wouldn't receive the $1 billion. Eventually, the prosecutor was fired.

Here is a concise transcript of the video: **Speaker 0:** Klitschko's situation is complicated, especially with his new deputy prime minister role. I think Yatseniuk is the right person with economic and governing experience, and he needs Klitschko and Tani Book on the outside, advising him. Klitschko working under Yatseniuk won't work. **Speaker 1:** Let's set up a call with Klitschko. Reaching out to him directly helps manage the personalities involved and allows us to move quickly. **Speaker 0:** Jeff Feltman mentioned Robert Seri as the new UN guy who could come in to help. **Speaker 1:** We need to make this stick, especially with potential Russian interference. Let me work on Klitschko, and we need someone with an international presence to help. We can regroup on outreach to Yanukovych tomorrow. **Speaker 0:** Sullivan says Biden is willing to give an "attaboy" tomorrow to help things stick.

I established a foundation in Ukraine prior to its independence in 1990. Figures like George Soros were unfortunately everywhere in these events. This team consisting of people like Newland, Soros, and Biden, acted in favor of Hillary Clinton's interests and tried to prevent Mr. Trump from being elected. We can look at the Arab Spring in North African countries such as Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt, as well as the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, and the Orange Revolution in 2004. The Revolution of Dignity in 2013 and 2014, all of this is related to his activities. He continued his operations in 2015 and 2016. Hunter Biden had deals in Ukraine, being on the board of directors of an oil and gas company in Ukraine. This explains the economic interests of the Biden family. Then there's the matter of supposed Russian election interference.

In 2014, riots known as the rebellion occurred in Ukraine, but it was not widely known that the US was financing these riots. The riots led to a coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government, which refused to align with the West. A month before the coup, a secret call between Victoria Nuland, a high-level official in the State Department, and the US ambassador was recorded and made public. In the call, they discussed choosing a new cabinet for Ukraine, essentially picking a US-backed government before the old one was overthrown. This raises questions about democracy and the role of organizations like USAID and the CIA, which have a history of overthrowing governments, including democracies.