TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

As European economies decline, young people can't afford homes, and energy costs are much higher, leading to a declining standard of living and low birth rates, which is a sign of civilizational collapse. There's a lot of rage in Europe, and the Russia-Ukraine war serves as a relief valve for European leaders to blame Putin. The UK's response to fighting a new war against Russia is sad because Russia could easily defeat the UK. Turning the population's rage towards Russia distracts from domestic issues. Intelligence sources believe Ukrainians were behind the Nord Stream pipeline attack.

- 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.

At the same moment COVID emergency powers began to wane, leaders started pushing for conflict with Russia, assuming historic war powers and declaring economic war without public debate. The administration destroyed Russia's currency, removed it from the international banking system, and seized property of affiliated people without due process. Tech monopolies now exert unprecedented control over public opinion, defining who Americans must hate and stage-managing crises. While these monopolies try to hide some topics, inflation cannot be hidden. Inflation is so high that even affluent people are worried, and politicians deny that government spending has anything to do with it. Inflation is a function of money supply. After the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve dropped interest rates to near zero and began printing money, which destroyed the economy. The country became more lopsided economically, with fewer people owning more. The Fed is out of tricks and cannot painlessly massage its way out of high gas prices. The White House is pretending it's not happening or blaming Vladimir Putin.

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.

Germany needs Russian gas, but the Nord Stream pipeline was blown up. The US is suspected. Instead of exporting gas to Europe, keep it in the US for manufacturing and industrial growth. Exporting gas raises costs and harms local communities. The US should prioritize domestic industry to create jobs and rebuild the economy.

The former CIA member raised concerns at a UN Security Council meeting about the alleged US bombing of the North Stream pipeline, calling it an act of war against Germany and Russia. He urged for media coverage and accountability. The response denied US involvement and emphasized support for Ukraine. The conversation escalated with demands for peace talks and accusations of risking nuclear war. The exchange ended in chaos and frustration.

During a UN Security Council meeting, Ray McGovern, a former CIA member, testified in support of Seymour Hersh's article on the alleged US bombing of the North Stream pipeline. The speaker questions whether the US should acknowledge this act of war against Germany and Russia to prevent a thermonuclear war. Speaker 1 denies any knowledge of US involvement and emphasizes President Biden's leadership on Ukraine and Russia. Speaker 2 passionately demands action and accuses Speaker 1 of sacrificing peace for political gain. The conversation becomes heated and ends abruptly.

Europe is not preparing for war, but for collapse, and elites are not gearing up for war with Russia because they care about freedom. They are doing it because their grip on power is slipping, economies are breaking, and the middle class is crushed. Hungary was sanctioned for refusing to send money to Ukraine, and Slovakia and Poland are breaking rank. The AFD is rising in Germany, and France is trying to stop Marine Le Pen. These are the voices of the people, and that terrifies the establishment. Elites crank up the fear, blame Russia, and push for war to cover for their own failures. The threat is coming from within, from the millions of people across Europe and the US who are done being lied to, used, and ignored. The media repeats the same script every day, and Trump is punching holes straight through it. The solution is to speak the truth, ask the right questions, and stop playing along.

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.

After Russia invaded Ukraine, the Nord Stream pipelines exploded under the Baltic Sea. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that the US and CIA blew up the pipelines to stop Russian gas supplies to Germany. The US wanted to promote its own gas exports to Europe. The operation involved planting bombs during NATO drills and detonating them remotely. The destruction of the pipelines led to increased gas prices in Europe, benefiting US gas producers. The US government's massive financial aid to Ukraine is also questioned.

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.

In this video, the speaker meets with the president of Serbia, who shares his perspective on the war in Ukraine and its impact on the European economy. The president mentions that the destruction of Nord Stream by the Biden administration is affecting the German economy, which is the largest in Europe. He believes that this war is hurting everyone except Russia and is shifting power away from the United States and the West. Overall, the president's insights highlight the complex nature of the conflict and its global repercussions.

The Germans clearly know that their NATO partner did this, but they and it damaged their economy greatly. It may never recover. Why are they being silent about it? That's very confusing to me. Why wouldn't the Germans say something about it? This also confuses me. But today's German leadership is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than its national interests. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the logic of their action or inaction. After all, it is not only about Nord Stream 1, which was blown up, and the Nord Stream 2 was damaged, But one pipe is safe and sound, and gas can be supplied to Europe through it. But Germany does not open it. We're ready, please.

Richard Wolff and Glenn discuss the future of the West, NATO, Europe, and the international economic system. - The central dynamic, according to Wolff, is the rise of China and the West’s unpreparedness. He argues that the West, after a long era of Cold War dominance, is encountering a China that grows two to three times faster than the United States, with no sign of slowing. China’s ascent has transformed global power relations and exposed that prior strategies to stop or slow China have failed. - The United States, having defeated various historical rivals, pursued a unipolar, neoliberal globalization project after the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of that era left the U.S. with a sense of “manifest destiny” to shape the world order. But now time is on China’s side, and the short-term fix for the U.S. is to extract value from its allies rather than invest in long-run geopolitics. Wolff contends the U.S. is engaging in a transactional, extractive approach toward Europe and other partners, pressuring them to concede significant economic and strategic concessions. - Europe is seen by Wolff as increasingly subordinated to U.S. interests, with its leadership willing to accept terrible trade terms and militarization demands to maintain alignment with Washington. He cites the possibility of Europe accepting LNG imports and investments to the U.S. economy at the expense of its own social welfare, suggesting that Europe’s social protections could be jeopardized by this “divorce settlement” with the United States. - Russia’s role is reinterpreted: while U.S. and European actors have pursued expanding NATO and a Western-led security architecture, Russia’s move toward Greater Eurasia and its pivot to the East, particularly under Putin, complicates Western plans. Wolff argues that the West’s emphasis on demonizing Russia as the unifying threat ignores the broader strategic competition with China and risks pushing Europe toward greater autonomy or alignment with Russia and China. - The rise of BRICS and China’s Belt and Road Initiative are framed as major competitive challenges to Western economic primacy. The West’s failure to integrate and adapt to these shifts is seen as a strategic misstep, especially given Russia’s earlier openness to a pan-European security framework that was rejected in favor of a U.S.-led order. - Within the United States, there is a debate about the proper response to these shifts. One faction desires aggressive actions, including potential wars (e.g., Iran) to deter adversaries, while another emphasizes the dangers of escalation in a nuclear age. Wolff notes that Vietnam and Afghanistan illustrate the limits of muscular interventions, and he points to domestic economic discontent—rising inequality, labor unrest, and a growing desire for systemic change—as factors that could press the United States to rethink its approach to global leadership. - Economically, Wolff challenges the dichotomy of public versus private dominance. He highlights China’s pragmatic hybrid model—roughly 50/50 private and state enterprise, with openness to foreign participation yet strong state direction. He argues that the fixation on choosing between private-market and public-control models is misguided and that outcomes matter more than orthodox ideological labels. - Looking ahead, Wolff is optimistic that Western economies could reframe development by learning from China’s approach, embracing a more integrated strategy that blends public and private efforts, and reducing ideological rigidity. He suggests Europe could reposition itself by deepening ties with China and leveraging its own market size to negotiate from a position of strength, potentially even joining or aligning with BRICS in some form. - For Europe, a potential path to resilience would involve shifting away from a mindset of subordination to the United States, pursuing energy diversification (including engaging with Russia for cheaper energy), and forming broader partnerships with China to balance relations with the United States and Russia. This would require political renewal in Europe and a willingness to depart from a “World War II–reboot” mentality toward a more pragmatic, multipolar strategy. - In closing, Wolff stresses that the West’s current trajectory is not inevitable. He envisions a Europe capable of redefining its alliances, reconsidering economic models, and seeking a more autonomous, multipolar future that reduces dependency on U.S. leadership. He ends with a provocative suggestion: Europe might consider a realignment toward Russia and China as a way to reshape global power balances, rather than defaulting to a perpetual U.S.-led order.

Speaker 0 asks who blew up Nord Stream, to which Speaker 1 jokingly replies that "we" did, implicating Speaker 0. Speaker 0 denies involvement and questions if there is evidence that NATO or the CIA did it. Speaker 1 avoids providing details but suggests looking for someone with an interest in such cases. Speaker 0 expresses confusion over the magnitude of the incident and suggests that if Speaker 1 had evidence, they should present it to win a propaganda victory. Speaker 1 claims it is difficult to defeat the United States in propaganda because they control global media, making it costly to get involved. They believe shining a spotlight on their sources of information won't yield results.

The Nord Stream pipelines, which carry natural gas from Russia to Western Europe, have been breached, resulting in a massive release of methane into the Baltic Sea. Swedish officials recorded two undersea explosions equivalent to hundreds of pounds of TNT near the leaks, leading to accusations of industrial terrorism. The prime suspect would be Vladimir Putin, but it would be self-destructive for Putin to destroy his own pipelines, which are a source of power, wealth, and leverage over Europe. Joe Biden had suggested in early February that "there will be no longer a Nord Stream two. We we will bring an end to it." Victoria Newland at the State Department made similar statements. A Polish politician, Radek Sikorski, posted "Thank you, USA" after the explosions. A new pipeline, the Baltic pipe, was inaugurated in Poland, carrying non-Russian natural gas. The White House press secretary noted the destruction highlights the importance of transitioning to clean energy.

After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Nord Stream pipelines exploded under the Baltic Sea, with suspicions of sabotage by Putin. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed a US-led mission to destroy the pipelines, impacting European gas supplies. US opposition to Nord Stream 2 aimed to promote American gas exports. The US Navy's divers reportedly planted bombs during NATO drills to blow up the pipelines. The explosions led to increased gas costs in Europe, benefiting US gas producers. The aftermath of the attacks remains unresolved, with implications for European economies and US taxpayers. Next, the focus shifts to US aid sent to Ukraine.

There is no clear solution in Russia and Putin's departure seems necessary, but there are no prominent alternatives. Radical individuals are gaining attention, which is concerning. Regarding the Russian interference, some believe Russia was responsible, while others, like my son who works in the energy sector, think otherwise. Although some benefited from the situation, such as natural gas producers worldwide, the United States made the most profit. We have evidence to support this claim. As a result, our policy shifted towards exporting liquid natural gas overseas.

Vladimir Putin would never blow up his own energy pipelines as they are crucial for Russia's power and leverage over other countries. However, other countries, including the US, have suggested the possibility of sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines. Joe Biden and Toria Nuland both hinted at stopping Nord Stream if Russia invades Ukraine. While it's hard to believe that the Biden administration would engage in such extreme actions, close allies like Radek Sikorski have thanked the US for the pipeline explosions. The White House has not denied responsibility and instead emphasizes the need for clean energy and reducing gas consumption. If the Biden administration is indeed responsible, it would be a destructive act consistent with their tendency to tear down rather than build.

We must permanently shut down the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to counter Putin's aggression. This pipeline poses a significant threat and is seen as a tool for energy blackmail. There is still time to halt its progress, but action is needed urgently. Stopping Nord Stream 2 is crucial for peace and security. Germany should cancel the project, and we must utilize all available tools to prevent its completion. If Russia invades Ukraine, Nord Stream 2 will not proceed. Recent damage to the pipeline has been attributed to sabotage, with misinformation being spread by Russia. It's essential to end Nord Stream 2 now and ensure it does not become operational.

The speakers discuss the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and the recent sabotage on it. While there is no direct evidence, many believe Russia is responsible. The speakers point to Russia's motive and past behavior as indicators. European leaders, experts, and NATO all suspect Russia's involvement. The sabotage could escalate tensions and potentially lead to a military response. The situation has changed the nature of the war in Ukraine and raises concerns about the use of nuclear weapons. Overall, the consensus is that Russia is the likely culprit behind the pipeline attack.

I predicted missiles would hit Poland near the defense pact area. Though the missiles were blown up before detonating, telemetry showed it wasn't Russia, despite Zelensky's insistence. The Nord Stream pipeline was also blamed on Russia, despite a lack of motive, and Biden's prior threat. They're now attacking nuclear power plants, including Chernobyl, risking a meltdown to blame on Russia. Zelensky, a puppet with a Napoleon complex, demands Trump seek his permission before speaking with Putin and wants nukes. The US funds most of Ukraine's operations, but Trump wants to cut off the money and leave Russia alone. Europe's defense ministers plan for a 20-30 year war with Russia for global control. Trump is dismantling the bureaucracy while the establishment panics.

At the same moment COVID emergency powers began to wane, leaders started pushing for conflict with Russia, assuming historic war powers and declaring economic war without public debate. The administration destroyed Russia's currency, removed it from the banking system, and seized property of affiliated people without due process. Tech monopolies now exert unprecedented control over public opinion, defining who Americans must hate and stage-managing crises. Inflation is so high that even affluent people are worried, and politicians deny that government spending is the cause. Inflation is a function of money supply, which increased dramatically under the Biden administration, but it started after the 2008 financial crisis when the Federal Reserve dropped interest rates to near zero and began printing money. This created asset inflation and economic disparity, but nobody could stop it for fear of collapse. The Fed is out of tricks, and the White House is pretending it's not happening or blaming Putin. The White House claims oil companies don't want to make money, which is why they're not drilling for oil.