reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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

Biden and Austin admitted that the purpose of the war in Ukraine was not about Ukrainian freedom, but rather to exhaust the Russian army and engage in a proxy war. The US repeatedly prevented Zelensky from signing the Minsk Accords, which could have prevented the war. The speaker believes that the US deliberately provoked Russia and that the war could have been avoided. They argue that the US's actions have led to negative consequences, such as pushing Russia towards China and risking the dollar's status as the world reserve currency. Additionally, the speaker highlights the danger of provoking a nuclear superpower and questions why the conflict was not resolved peacefully from the start.

Russia's winning. They are winning decisively across the entire battlefront. If you get your information from The Economist, The Financial Times, The New York Times, Washington Post, you are reading undiluted propaganda. Trump's legacy, MAGA, the one big beautiful bill, terrorists, that legacy is in danger of being destroyed by Trump's failure to get out of the war in Ukraine. Show me a winning army in the history of the world that agreed to an unconditional ceasefire. It doesn't happen. If Putin's depending on high priced oil revenue to finance the war, the way to stop the war is to get the price of oil down to $30.40 bucks. Not with sanctions. Let Russia pump as much.

Rick Sanchez discusses his career trajectory, including his time at RT. He was recruited by Larry King and found RT offered more editorial freedom than CNN, Fox, or NBC, where questioning neocon foreign policy was a red line. He wrote his entire show without pre-approval. After leaving RT to rejoin a healthcare company, Sanchez returned to do a show that aired globally but was banned in the U.S. He felt compelled to share an American perspective with the world and engage in discussions to prevent further conflict. He recounts a call from a former CNN colleague, now working with the State Department, which he interpreted as a warning. Subsequently, the Biden administration, via the Treasury Department, effectively shut down the company producing his show, threatening legal repercussions for any American associated with RT, alleging Russian interference in U.S. elections. Sanchez expresses dismay at the state's control over information and the demonization of Russians. He notes that the Russian perspective on the Ukraine war involves broken promises from NATO and the U.S. regarding eastward expansion. He criticizes the U.S. media landscape, where former government spokespersons dominate news networks. He also recounts an incident where a newspaper killed a story about his experience after a call from an unknown party to the managing editor. He believes Trump's instincts are correct regarding engagement and that the real battle is between worldviews, with Russia being part of the Christian West.

Rick Sanchez discusses his career trajectory, including his time at RT. He was recruited by Larry King and found RT to be surprisingly journalistically free, more so than CNN, Fox, or NBC. He wrote his entire show without pre-approval. Despite his extensive experience and awards, he finds it difficult to get hired in the U.S., possibly due to his work with RT. Sanchez recounts being contacted by a former CNN colleague, now working in the State Department, which he interpreted as a warning about his work. Subsequently, the Biden administration, via the Treasury Department, effectively shut down the U.S. company producing his RT show, threatening fines or imprisonment for Americans working with RT. This action, he believes, was politically motivated and a violation of free speech. He also shares a story about a newspaper killing a story about him after a call from someone. Sanchez and the interviewer discuss the anti-Russia sentiment in the U.S., the demonization of Russians, and the one-sided narrative presented by American media. Sanchez shares the Russian perspective on the Ukraine war, emphasizing NATO expansion and the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine as contributing factors. They lament the lack of engagement and the dangers of not hearing different perspectives.

Speaker 0: "Papa Gallo, parrot, stop repeating what everybody else is saying and think for yourself." "People have little minds. The masses follow." "My greatest concern is there's gonna be a false flag event that's gonna escalate this war." Speaker 1: "NATO can't keep going at this rate; not enough weapons to sustain Ukraine." "In a multipolar world, Russia, China, and India realize they need to cooperate because The US cannot be trusted." "They're gonna unite more." "When Biden put the sanctions on Russia, he said, quote, Putin's gonna pay the price." "We wrote in the Trends journal, no, they're not, that the people Russia has all of the technological, industrial, high-tech. They have they have all they need to be self sufficient." "All these companies pulling out of Russia, the Russian people are gonna take it over." "If we do, life on earth will be destroyed in twenty four hours."

Checklist: - Identify core claims: war in Ukraine not about NATO; Putin’s draft treaty; democracy vs. other motives; sphere of influence; West’s actions. - Remove repetition and filler; keep unique points. - Preserve key phrases and claims from the transcript where feasible. - Include notable comparisons (Hitler) and the Lindsey Graham reference. - Produce a concise, neutral summary within 378–473 words. Several speakers insist the war in Ukraine is not about NATO enlargement. Speaker 0 notes that President Putin sent a draft treaty to NATO promising no further enlargement as a precondition for not invading Ukraine; we rejected that, and he went to war to prevent NATO from closing near his borders. A flashback reinforces the point: “This is fundamentally not about NATO expansion,” with repeated lines such as “It’s not about NATO,” “Nothing to do with NATO,” and “NATO is not the reason.” Others push an alternative framing: the conflict is about democratic expansion rather than NATO. “This is not about NATO expansion,” one speaker repeats, followed by, “This is about democratic expansion” and “Ukraine is banning political parties… Ukraine restricts books and music… Ukraine won’t hold elections. It’s about democracy.” Still others insist the war has nothing to do with NATO, reiterating statements like “It has nothing to do with NATO” and “Nothing to do with NATO expansion,” while acknowledging that “security purposes” are claimed by some. A thread develops that Russia seeks a sphere of influence over Ukraine, and that the West’s challenges to Russian interests may have contributed to the conflict. “Hang on. I mean, the two are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, Russia has wished for a sphere of influence over Ukraine. But if the West had not challenged Russian interests so directly, I think that there there was a chance to avoid this war.” Putin’s demand for a binding pledge never to enlarge NATO is contrasted with the claim that the invasion is driven by broader ambitions. Moral condemnations appear: “The reason why Putin invaded Ukraine is because of his evil,” with references to “evil” and Putin’s goal to rebuild a Soviet empire, echoed by a comparison to Hitler. “Hitler… He’s a Hitler,” and “We’re back when the Nazis invaded Poland,” are invoked to describe Putin as a new Hitler, a butcher “trying to kill people everywhere in the world, just not Ukraine, Syria.” The discussion closes with thanks to Senator Lindsey Graham and a transition to the next segment: “Alright. Straight ahead.”

The speaker highlights the lack of awareness in English-speaking countries about significant global developments, contrasting it with the awareness in Asia and the Middle East. They criticize the corrupt and biased media outlets in these countries, particularly in the US, for promoting government propaganda instead of journalism. The speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding the conflict in Ukraine and criticizes the lack of interviews with Vladimir Putin. They assert the right to freedom of speech and accuse the Biden administration of spying and leaking information to prevent a planned Putin interview. The speaker assures that their trip to Moscow was self-funded and encourages viewers to watch the unedited interview on their website. They anticipate censorship from Western governments but urge viewers to make their own informed decisions.

Tucker Carlson, a right-wing media figure, is in Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin. Critics argue that Carlson is not a journalist and instead spreads misinformation on behalf of the Kremlin. They believe his work is biased and not aligned with the facts. Some compare his interview with Putin to watching a scandalous show. Furthermore, there is concern that the Republican Party, including Donald Trump, is doing Putin's bidding. Although some see this as Republicans supporting Putin, others believe they are actually supporting Trump, who in turn supports Putin.

Speaker 0: In, say, Britain, they've banned CGTN, the Chinese channel, from broadcasting RT, famously. Why is it that, do you think Russia thinks it's fine? I think Sergei Lavrov this week giving a press conference allowing Western reporters, accreditation, whereas in The United States, they obviously don't ban media in The US because of the First Amendment. Certainly in Europe, obviously, there's mass banning of, journalists and journalism. What what's behind, that? And that surely does depart somewhat from manufacturing consent where they didn't wanna ban anything. They just knew that lower selling outlets would fail to engage the populace in dissident opinion? Speaker 1: Well, I think first of all that's quite normal. You look through the, say the take a more recent event, the Iraq war, not that far back. Anyone who dares to say that the Iraq War was the major crime of this century, which it certainly was, is bitterly denounced and condemned. If you look at discussion in the mainstream, you'll be hard put to find anyone who can reach the mainstream who will say the elementary truth, indisputable truth, that the Iraq war was an example of what the Nuremberg Tribunal called the supreme international crime, crime of aggression, differs from other war crimes only in that it includes all of the evil that follows. So find somebody who says President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney were guilty of the crimes for which people were hanged at Nuremberg. Instead what you have is celebration of George Bush, the great criminal who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and destroyed them, Celebration of him as a lovely person, it's called a goofy grandpa who plays with his grandchildren, paints pictures. Just a delightful person. Well, that's the Iraq War. It's quite striking that anyone who dares to compare the Iraq War with the Russian invasion of Ukraine is viciously denounced.

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.

"Please explain to me the difference between Putin's invasion of Ukraine and our invasion of Iraq." "Somebody tell me what was different." "Why was ours considered okay and Russia's not?" "The only they're for the same thing, regime change." "Same thing." "We wanna change who is governing Iraq." "Putin wanted to change who is governing Ukraine." "Now don't get me wrong." "I didn't support either war." "They both suck." "But everybody you notice our national media doesn't bring that up at all, do they?" "And you notice they brought up now the Fed or the international courts have made it so Putin can't travel now because he's considered a war criminal." "Let's not forget the international courts did the same thing with Bush and Cheney after the invasion of Iraq." "Why do you think George Bush can't leave The US?"

We are in Moscow to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin. The war in Ukraine has had significant global impacts, reshaping military alliances and the world economy. However, many English-speaking countries remain unaware of these changes due to corrupt and biased media outlets. While numerous interviews have been conducted with Ukrainian President Zelensky, no Western journalist has interviewed Putin. Americans have the right to know about a war they are involved in, and we have the right to inform them. Despite attempts to suppress this interview, it can be watched for free on our website. We encourage viewers to watch and make their own judgments.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify the central claim Putin allegedly offered a treaty to block NATO expansion and the counterclaim that the issue is not NATO. - Distill the core arguments: democracy-related actions in Ukraine cited as the real issue vs. NATO expansion. - Preserve sharp, quoted statements that reflect the speakers’ positions (e.g., “not about NATO,” “draft treaty,” “never enlarge NATO”). - Exclude repetitive banter and filler; retain unique or surprising points. - Highlight the implied link between Western actions and the war, plus extreme comparisons (Hitler) as presented. - Maintain a neutral tone, presenting claims exactly as stated without evaluation. Summary: President Putin allegedly sent a draft treaty asking NATO to promise no further enlargement, a precondition for avoiding invasion of Ukraine, which the speakers state was rejected and followed by war to prevent NATO from approaching Russia’s borders. The discussion repeatedly asserts, however, that the war is not about NATO enlargement. “This is fundamentally not about NATO expansion,” “It was never about NATO. It’s not about NATO,” and similar lines are echoed by multiple participants, underscoring a view that NATO is not the central issue. Opposing voices insist the conflict concerns democracy in Ukraine. They claim Ukraine bans religious organizations and political parties, restricts books and music, and allegedly won’t hold elections, framing the war as a defense of democracy rather than expansion of NATO. One speaker states, “This war in Ukraine… is not about NATO,” while another asserts that Ukraine is a democracy under threat because of its domestic policies, insisting, “This is not about NATO expansion. It has nothing to do with NATO.” Several contributors acknowledge a more nuanced view that Russia seeks a sphere of influence over Ukraine and that Western challenges to Russian interests may have intensified the conflict; they note the two aspects are not mutually exclusive. “Hang on. I mean, the two are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, Russia has wished for a sphere of influence over Ukraine,” and acknowledge that Western actions could have shaped outcomes. The rhetoric intensifies with moral and historical analogies. Putin’s invasion is described variably as evil, with one speaker calling it part of an attempt to rebuild a Soviet empire; another references comparisons to Hitler, noting, “Hitler… Remember Hitler,” and “This is exactly the same, what Hitler was doing to Jews.” The discussion culminates with a remark from Senator Lindsey Graham acknowledging the exchange before segueing to the next segment.

Russia is consistently portrayed as acting against American interests, particularly with its alliance with China and its invasion of Ukraine. This action, while wrong, was driven by Russia's concern over Ukraine potentially joining NATO and becoming a satellite of the United States with American weapons. The speaker argues that Ukraine's government isn't fully sovereign, alleging it was installed by a CIA coup. They highlight that during peace talks in Istanbul, a potential agreement was disrupted by the US, leading to further devastation and loss of life in Ukraine. The speaker questions why the U.S. is at war with Russia.

Journalists have a duty to inform the public, especially about the war in Ukraine, which Americans are funding. We interviewed Vladimir Putin; it's our job to present diverse perspectives, even if controversial. The war's impact is devastating, reshaping global alliances and the economy. Many question the Western media's narrative, citing potential bias and censorship. Accusations of propaganda against Tucker Carlson are dismissed; Zelensky's appearances are presented as comparable examples of promotion rather than unbiased reporting. The public deserves access to information to decide for themselves. We believe in freedom of speech and the right to hear all sides, despite government attempts at suppression. This interview is crucial because Americans are funding the war and should understand the reasons behind it, including potential NATO expansion and the dubious nature of Ukraine's democracy.

Rick Sanchez discusses his career journey, including his time at RT. Larry King convinced him to consider working for RT, assuring him of editorial control. Sanchez, who had left television news after being fired by CNN and starting a healthcare company, missed storytelling and decided to join RT five years prior to the interview. He emphasizes the editorial freedom he experienced at RT, contrasting it with the restrictions he faced at CNN, Fox, and NBC, where certain guests and topics were off-limits. Sanchez notes that RT was not available in the United States after the Ukraine war began. He says the Biden administration, through the Treasury Department, effectively banned Americans from working for or contracting with RT, citing concerns about Russian interference in US elections. Sanchez recounts a phone call from a former CNN colleague, now working in the State Department, which he interpreted as a warning. He also describes how a major US newspaper killed a story about his experience after a call from an unknown source to the managing editor. He believes the US government is trying to control who Americans can work for, watch, or receive news from.

We are in Moscow to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin in order to inform people about the war in Ukraine and its global implications. The war has caused immense human suffering and has reshaped military alliances and the world economy. However, English-speaking populations are largely unaware of these changes due to corrupt and biased media outlets. While Western journalists have interviewed Ukrainian President Zelensky, they have failed to interview Putin or provide a balanced perspective. We believe Americans have the right to know about a war they are involved in, and we are here to exercise our freedom of speech. We are not here because we support Putin, but because we love the United States and want to protect its prosperity and freedom.

I met Prime Minister Orban 36 years ago and saw in him vision, energy, and foresight. The Ukraine war resulted from the US's idea to expand NATO eastward, ignoring promises made to Russia. Yesterday was historic; Trump and Putin spoke, and the defense secretary admitted Ukraine won't join NATO, forming a basis for peace. For 30 years, America played a "game of risk," seeking world hegemony, but Rubio now acknowledges a multipolar world. Europe is befuddled as the US reverses course. I told European leaders this project wouldn't work; Russia sees it as life or death. ExpressVPN shields your online activity. We need rational conversations in foreign policy, not attacks based on motive. The problem is the arrogance of power.