TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In 2014, three foreign ministers from Poland, Germany, and France arrived in Ukraine to guarantee a peaceful resolution between the government and the opposition. However, just two days later, a coup d'etat took place, allegedly orchestrated by the United States. The European guarantors claimed ignorance of the situation. The memory of these events seems to have faded in Europe, but Ukraine has not forgotten. The desire to bring Ukraine into NATO and the ongoing conflict in the Donbas region have contributed to the current tragedy.

Good afternoon. I ask you to convene here today to inform you about how the negotiations are going on on the Ukrainian crisis and how the negotiations are developing in the bilateral format with the Ukrainian delegation in one way or another. And two, I'd like to inform you about at what stage we are currently with the American administration. We know that they are taking quite vigorous and sincere efforts to put an end to the hostilities, to put an end to this crisis, and to reach an agreement that would be of interest for all the parties involved in this conflict to ensure durable conditions for peace between our countries and in Europe in general and globally as well. If the next stage would be agreement about strategic offensive weapons, that's what I wanted to say in the beginning.

John Brennan possibly traveled to Kyiv under another name, but it's unclear. US VP Biden pledged $50 million in aid to help Ukraine through the crisis. Pro-Russian separatists clashed with ultranationalists, raising civil war concerns. The US aims to support Ukraine's stability and security by providing assistance and information. Ukraine deserves to determine its future free from outside interference.

"United States continues to stand with Ukraine. And earlier this morning, I called Ukraine's acting defense minister to tell him that president Obama has approved additional nonlethal military assistance for health and welfare items and other supplies." "Pressure is mounting on US president Barack Obama to provide lethal aid to Ukraine's military." "Both the house and senate passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act in late December, paving the way for March worth in lethal and nonlethal military assistance, a rare agreement in the usually divided congress." "The US is one step away from providing Ukraine with $350,000,000 worth of support after congress unanimously passed a bill late on Thursday." "As rockets are launched into the skies over Eastern Ukraine and shells hit apartment buildings in Donetsk, the human toll of the conflict is inescapable."

US officials engage in discussions about global issues, particularly in Ukraine, where the Secretary met with opposition leaders and the foreign minister. While these discussions involve potential UN involvement, it's essential to recognize the distinction between private diplomatic conversations and public statements. The US maintains that the future of Ukraine is ultimately for its people to decide. However, there are concerns about the disparity between private negotiations and public messaging, suggesting that the US may be more involved in shaping outcomes than it admits. This raises questions about the nature of diplomatic discussions and the transparency of US intentions.

We're discussing Victoria Nuland, the top US diplomat for Europe, and her phone call with US Ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt. Nuland highlights the importance of international support, mentioning that both Seri and Ban Ki Moon have agreed to assist Ukraine. Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the US has invested over $5 billion to help build democratic institutions and promote civic participation, essential for Ukraine's European aspirations. The American public supports Ukraine's resistance, as protesters seek closer ties to Europe rather than Russia. The US has historically been concerned about the potential alliance between Germany and Russia, viewing it as a significant threat due to their combined resources and capabilities.

The speaker discusses the presence of a guest from the United States who frequently visited and supported protests in Ukraine. They express concern about the excessive use of force by the authorities during these protests. The speaker questions the appropriateness of supporting the protesters and creating conflict when they occupy government buildings. They also mention their contact with Vice President Biden and criticize the inconsistency between his words and actions in Ukraine. The speaker suggests that the US ambassador in Ukraine regularly met with representatives of the protests, giving the impression that there was a headquarters managing the process.

Speaker 1: We have not gone to war with Russia. Russia is isolated, more than five years ago, a regional power threatening neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness. Ukraine had influence for decades since the Soviet breakup. We have considerable influence on our neighbors and generally don't need to invade to have cooperation. Russia's military action violates international law and signals less influence. They don't pose the number one national security threat to United States; I am concerned about a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan. Speaker 2: It is up to the Ukrainian people to decide how they organize themselves. The Ukrainian government is prepared to negotiate with Russia, and the international community supports a diplomatic process to de-escalate tensions, move Russian troops back from Ukraine's borders, and organize elections; the Ukrainian people will choose leadership. They will want a relationship with Europe and with Russia; this is not a zero-sum game.

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.

We've seen protests in Ukraine evolve into what some call a revolution, aiming to change the government and sign agreements with the EU, which could boost Ukraine's business environment. The free world and America support Ukraine. We've been actively engaged, but some think certain figures shouldn't be in government. Recent reports indicate Russian troops near a Ukrainian military base, raising tensions after Crimea voted to join Russia. Pro-Russian militants have seized buildings in eastern cities, with the Ukrainian interior minister promising a strong response, and an anti-terrorist operation is underway. Easter was violent, with deaths reported near Slavyansk. The US Vice President pledged aid to Ukraine, emphasizing the need for Ukrainians to determine their future without external interference. The CIA is working with Ukrainian partners to restore stability. Following airstrikes, the government aims to eliminate terrorists, but questions arise about attacks on separatist headquarters. The US supports Ukraine's defense of its territory.

"Peace in Ukraine is possible now." "The war started eleven years ago when The United States backed a violent coup to overthrow the Ukrainian government of president Viktor Yanukovych." "Why did The United States want NATO enlargement? Because The United States wanted to dominate Russia." "It was based on autonomy for Eastern Ukraine, the ethnically Russian part of Ukraine." "The United States and Germany ignored the treaty." "Do not accept neutrality. Fight on." "The Ukraine war can end now based on neutrality of Ukraine. Just say it. Neutrality." "Diplomacy where Europe and Russia sit down and undertake collective security, recognizing that Russia does not want NATO or NATO troops on its border, and Russia recognizing that Europe does not want Russian troops in Ukraine."

US officials are discussing events in Ukraine, including brokering a future government with UN involvement. Private diplomatic conversations are common, but public statements reflect US government positions. There are differing opinions on including certain individuals in the government. Discussions are ongoing about the best approach moving forward.

Russia occupied parts of Ukraine starting in 2014, and despite conversations and agreements, nothing stopped them. We signed ceasefire deals with Macron and Merkel, but Russia broke them, killing our people and not exchanging prisoners. I question what kind of diplomacy is being discussed when our country faces destruction. Everyone faces problems during war, but it seems like some don't fully grasp the situation. From the beginning, we've been strong and thankful, even when alone. However, we are told that we're not winning and should be more appreciative of the aid we've received. We want to stop the war, and if a ceasefire could be reached with guarantees, it would save lives.

President Zelensky of Ukraine is seeking to negotiate a just peace and reclaim his country's sovereignty. The US is working with him on a 10-point formula to achieve this. Diplomatic efforts have been ongoing for months, with discussions held between national security advisors. In terms of military support, Ukraine has received everything they requested leading up to and during the counteroffensive. A recent package of assistance was provided, including F-16s and heavy armor. The US believes they have provided Ukraine with what they need to succeed in their defensive efforts.

So, back in 2014, Russia occupied parts of Ukraine, and nobody stopped them. From 2014 to 2022, people kept dying, despite our conversations and signed ceasefire deals with Macron and Merkel. Russia broke the ceasefire, killed our people, and didn't exchange prisoners. What kind of diplomacy is that? It's disrespectful to come here and complain when the US is trying to prevent the destruction of Ukraine. You're drafting conscripts because of manpower issues. Be thankful for our help. Everyone has problems during war. We're staying strong in our country. From the start, we've been alone, but we are thankful. We want to stop the war, but we need guarantees for any ceasefire. Don't ask about ceasefires, ask about our people.

We're hearing Russia wants Ukraine to hold new elections to sign a peace deal, and the US position on that is complex. Ukraine hasn't had elections due to martial law. The leader's approval rating is low, around 4%. Much of the country is devastated. Many cities have been decimated, though Kyiv hasn't been as badly affected, maybe out of concern for the impact of heavy bombardment. For Ukraine to have a legitimate seat at the table, the people need to have their say. It's been a long time since they've had an election. This isn't just Russia's view, but mine and that of many other countries as well.

The discussion centers on how US officials handle diplomacy publicly and privately, particularly in relation to Ukraine. Speaker 0 notes that US officials talk about world issues because that's part of diplomatic work, and mentions that the secretary met with the opposition and stopped by a meeting with the foreign minister. He says it’s up to the people of Ukraine, including officials from both sides, to determine the path forward, but indicates that there should be no surprise that discussions about events on the ground are taking place. Speaker 1 counters that this is more than discussions, describing it as “two top US officials that are on the ground discussing a plan that they have to broker a future government and bringing officials from the UN to kind of seal the deal.” They suggest this signals that the US is “midwifing the process,” not merely offering suggestions, and imply private diplomacy is aiming to shape a post-conflict outcome with UN involvement. Speaker 0 acknowledges that private diplomatic conversations happen and involve deliberations about what involvement the UN can have and what engagement should occur on the ground. He says such discussions shouldn’t be surprising and that there is a range of options under consideration, including private interagency process discussions and what is conveyed publicly as US policy. Speaker 2 challenges this by arguing it’s not honest to claim there is no opinion and that the process is entirely up to the people of Ukraine. They point to Egypt as a counterexample, asserting that there is a public stance that differs from private discussions. Speaker 0 distinguishes between private conversations within the interagency process and what is publicly conveyed as US policy. He asserts a responsibility to convey the government’s position while also noting that a range of options are being discussed. Speaker 1 presses the distinction further, asking what happens behind closed doors when private deals are discussed versus publicly stating that the decision lies with Ukrainians. They emphasize the perceived difference between privately “cooking up a deal” and publicly acknowledging Ukrainian decision-making. Speaker 0 concludes by saying they would disagree with Speaker 1, arguing that they are overstating and overqualifying a few minutes of a privately recorded phone call.

Russia occupied parts of Ukraine, including Crimea, starting in 2014. During the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, no one stopped him as people died on the contact line. In 2019, I signed a ceasefire deal with Macron, Merkel, and him, but he broke it, killing people and not exchanging prisoners. We need diplomacy to end the destruction of Ukraine. We have problems during the war, like everyone else. We are staying strong and thankful for the support, but we are not winning. You have given us billions of dollars in military equipment. I have said thank you many times to the American people. We want to stop the war, but we want a ceasefire with guarantees. Ask our people about a ceasefire. Obama gave us sheets, but Trump gave us javelins. Without your support, we have no cards.

US officials are involved in discussions regarding Ukraine, with plans to broker a future government. Private diplomatic conversations are common, including talks about UN involvement. There is a disagreement over public versus private statements on US involvement in Ukraine. Additionally, there are discussions about the roles of key political figures like Klitschko in the government. The focus is on maintaining unity among moderate Democrats and strategizing for the future. Plans for further conversations and meetings are being considered.

We're discussing a phone call between Victoria Nuland, the top US diplomat for Europe, and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt. They talk about getting Sari to come in on Monday or Tuesday with the help of the UN and EU. The United States has supported Ukraine since its independence in 1991, investing over $5 billion to promote democracy, good governance, and civic participation. Americans support Ukrainian protesters who want closer ties to Europe. The United States has always been concerned about the alliance between Germany and Russia, as it poses a threat. The combination of German technology and capital with Russian resources and manpower has historically worried the US.

US officials are involved in discussions about Ukraine, including potential government formation. Private diplomatic conversations are common, with the US considering various options. There is debate about Klitschko's role in the government, with concerns about keeping moderate Democrats united. The focus is on maintaining communication with key figures to navigate the political landscape.

I met with the opposition and the foreign minister this weekend. It's up to the Ukrainian people to decide the path forward, but discussions are happening. These are more than discussions. Top US officials are on the ground, discussing a plan to broker a future government, involving the UN. The US is midwifing the process. These are private diplomatic conversations where we discuss UN involvement. It's dishonest to say we don't have an opinion. There's a difference between private discussions and our public position. As diplomats, we discuss a range of options. Saying privately you're cooking up a deal, then saying publicly it's up to Ukrainians, those are different positions. Diplomatic discussions are sensitive, but those are totally different positions. You're overstating a private phone call.

More clashes in Ukraine's capital, Kyiv, as it turns into a war zone. Questions of credibility arise after a leaked chat between top US diplomats discussing restructuring the Ukrainian government. The US government has a history of wanting regime change in various countries, and they have allies in the media and government to control the narrative. NATO has expanded into 13 countries, leading to concerns about the start of Cold War 2.0.

US officials are discussing global issues, including events in Ukraine. They have met with the opposition and the foreign minister, but the path forward is up to the people of Ukraine. However, it is not surprising that discussions are happening. There are claims that the US is actively involved in brokering a future government and bringing in UN officials. The US government acknowledges private diplomatic conversations but also has a responsibility to convey its position publicly. There is a difference between private discussions and public statements. Some argue that if the US is privately working on a deal while publicly stating that it is up to Ukrainians to decide, it is contradictory. However, others believe that the private conversation was just a couple of minutes and should not be overstated.

In 2014, three foreign ministers from Poland, Germany, and France arrived in Ukraine to sign an agreement between the government and the opposition. However, just two days later, a coup d'etat took place, orchestrated by our American allies. The European guarantors of the agreement claimed ignorance. This event, along with the desire to bring Ukraine into NATO, has led to the ongoing tragedy in the Donbas region.