TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker expresses concern about the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the delivery of weapons to the country. They believe that the war could have been avoided through peaceful resolution and criticize the inconsistency in international relations. The speaker questions the effectiveness of large-scale weapon deliveries and emphasizes the importance of understanding and dialogue. They also mention the changing stance of American politicians towards negotiating with Putin. The speaker concludes by stating the need to end the war quickly and the importance of defending one's beliefs from the beginning.

The speaker discusses the assumption that Western arms deliveries to Ukraine will continue, emphasizing that if they stop, Ukraine will also cease to exist. They highlight the potential costs of Russia winning the conflict, including a large number of refugees and the geopolitical implications for Europe and the United States. The speaker argues that Western support for Ukraine is relatively inexpensive compared to the potential consequences of Russia's victory. They also mention the importance of Ukraine's military resilience in order to maintain its independence and statehood. The speaker emphasizes that Russia is the enemy and poses a threat to the Western liberal order. They criticize the media for portraying the conflict as a soap opera rather than recognizing the ideological battle for the future of Europe.

Putin is determined not to lose Ukraine due to its strategic importance for Russia's security, agriculture, and energy pipelines. The US supports Ukraine out of ideology, not economic interest, leading to a geopolitical power struggle. Ukraine becomes a pawn in a global game involving Russia, the US, Iran, and China.

The speaker argues that the United States is shaping Ukrainian strategy to be aggressive toward Russia, asserting that Ukrainians are being encouraged to believe they will ultimately join the West because the United States will prevail over Putin and achieve its aims. The speaker notes that time is on the side of the U.S. and its allies, and that the Ukrainians, according to the speaker, are largely aligned with this perspective. The speaker claims that the Ukrainians are almost completely unwilling to compromise with the Russians and instead are pursuing a hard-line policy. Building on this assessment, the speaker states a consequence: if the Ukrainians continue to take a hard-line stance, the end result will be that their country is wrecked. The speaker contends that the policy and posture being encouraged effectively drive toward that outcome, implying that the approach is counterproductive for Ukraine’s welfare. From the speaker’s viewpoint, it would be more sensible for the United States and its partners to work toward creating a neutral Ukraine. The speaker asserts that achieving neutrality would be in the United States’ interest, as it would help bury the crisis quickly. The speaker also claims that it would be in Russia’s interest to resolve the crisis in this manner, implying mutual benefit from moving toward neutrality rather than escalation. Most importantly, the speaker emphasizes that it would be in Ukraine’s interest to bring the crisis to an end. The underlying claim is that ending the crisis through neutrality would align with Ukraine’s best interests, contrasting with the consequences of a prolonged hard-line policy and continued conflict. Throughout the statement, the speaker presents a contrast between a hard-line Ukrainian posture and the proposed alternative of neutrality, framing the latter as a quicker, more beneficial resolution for all parties involved. The overall argument centers on the idea that current encouragement of a tough posture leads to a wrecked Ukraine, while a shift toward neutrality would serve American, Russian, and Ukrainian interests by ending the crisis promptly.

Russia invaded Ukraine with only 40,000 troops, indicating they did not aim to take over the entire country. Instead, they wanted to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table. In March 2022, Ukrainian President Zelensky and Russian President Putin agreed on a peace agreement based on the Minsk Accords. However, President Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to sabotage the agreement, leading to war. Since then, 350,000 Ukrainian children and 40-50,000 Russians have died. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin questioned the purpose of the war, while Biden stated it was for regime change in Russia. This conflict is essentially a proxy struggle between Russia and the United States, with the US committing $113 billion to Ukraine, far surpassing the budgets of other organizations.

The heavy involvement in Ukraine is likely due to the end of the Afghanistan war. If Afghanistan were still ongoing, the need for such extensive involvement in Ukraine might not exist. Many defense contractors seem to be pushing for extended, low-yield wars. The goal appears to be stretching conflicts out for twenty to thirty years to keep money flowing through unaccountable sources. This approach involves purchasing weapons, depleting stockpiles, and then requesting more funds to replenish them, creating a cycle of continuous spending.

The Biden-Harris administration persuaded Ukraine to abandon a peace deal that would have resulted in losing only half of the territory currently occupied by Russia, leading to significant loss of life. This decision was driven by interests in the vast mineral resources under the Donbas region and the desire to weaken Russia's military. Additionally, U.S. hedge funds are profiting from Ukraine's fertile land and mineral rights. The narrative of the U.S. standing with Ukraine is misleading, aimed at justifying prolonged conflict for profit. Ultimately, the actions taken have cost Ukraine its territory and the lives of its children, with war profiteers showing no genuine support for the Ukrainian people.

With a million Ukrainians dead or permanently injured, an entire generation lost, and the country in ruins, the situation is dire. Recently, the White House has authorized the use of long-range missiles in Ukraine, indicating NATO's involvement in attacks on Russia. Ukrainians lack the expertise to operate these missiles. Additionally, the Biden administration has reversed its stance on anti-personnel mines, which they previously condemned, now allowing their use despite the known dangers to civilians, especially children. This raises questions about who is truly in charge in the White House. Initially, it seemed like Tony Blinken was leading, but now it feels like dark forces are at play. The use of anti-personnel mines serves only to harm innocents, highlighting the moral implications of these decisions. The Ukrainian president, who operates without a democratic mandate, has also suppressed religious freedoms.

The US and UK have shifted their stance on the Ukraine war to one of supporting victory at all costs, as stated by defense officials. This policy leads to significant loss of life among both Ukrainian and Russian soldiers, many of whom are young and unaware of the realities of war. The focus seems to be on winning rather than the human cost, treating the conflict like a game where the score matters more than the lives lost. The influx of military weaponry reflects this mindset, prioritizing victory over the well-being of those on the battlefield.

The US and UK are now fully supporting the war in Ukraine, aiming for victory at any cost by sending large amounts of military weapons. This approach will lead to unnecessary deaths of innocent Ukrainian and Russian soldiers, many of whom are young. The speaker expresses sadness over the loss of life on both sides, highlighting the lack of concern from the US and NATO for the lives lost in the conflict. The situation is likened to a football game where winning is prioritized over the well-being of the players.

Over a million Ukrainians are dead or permanently maimed, and the country is devastated. Recently, the Biden administration approved the use of anti-personnel mines, contradicting previous stances. These mines pose a danger to civilians, especially children, who may mistake them for toys. There's confusion about who is truly in charge in the White House, with speculation about figures like Anthony Blinken or Jake Sullivan. The situation in Ukraine is characterized by a lack of justification for violence, with the current Ukrainian leadership being described as dictatorial. The broader implications reflect a dying empire, marked by nihilism and desperation, leading to senseless violence reminiscent of historical collapses.

Apparently, the strategy is to weaken Russia, which is essentially a state of war. The aim is to remove Putin, replace his administration, and potentially divide Russia. This stems from the neoconservative movement, which has always been anti-Soviet and anti-Russian, pushing for a strong, challenging America. However, America can't challenge Russia, especially since the U.S. military isn't ready for war. The U.S. is using the Ukrainian military as cannon fodder, fighting over pride and fear of a Russian/Chinese economic takeover. America shouldn't go to war for trade, even if it means becoming number two or three economically. The world is multipolar, but the U.S. hasn't accepted this. People don't realize how destructive even a limited war would be. The situation is much more dangerous than people realize because America is too prideful and arrogant and will be nasty when it doesn't get its way in Ukraine.

We're witnessing an unprecedented influx of weapons into Ukraine, but their final destinations remain largely unknown. Despite concerns about weapons potentially falling into the wrong hands, the priority is ensuring Ukrainian forces have what they need to fight. NATO countries are on high alert, balancing support for Ukraine with preventing a broader conflict with Russia. The war in Ukraine has tapped into deep emotions, drawing in foreign volunteers. However, the rise of paramilitary units raises concerns about governmental control on the battlefield. Logistical challenges, corruption, and bureaucracy hinder the delivery of supplies to the front lines. While the US and Europe are sending aid, there's debate on whether enough oversight exists to track where the weapons end up, both now and in the future, and whether a half-way approach to the war will be effective.

The U.S. is pushing Ukraine to send 18 to 25-year-olds to fight in the war against Russia, despite growing public support in Ukraine for a peace deal. This strategy is viewed as a means to prolong an unwinnable conflict, allowing the U.S. to focus on other geopolitical goals. Critics argue that the U.S. is treating Ukraine like a pawn in a larger game for global dominance, with the CIA and State Department effectively controlling the country. Despite Ukraine's leadership acknowledging the need for peace talks, the U.S. continues to provide military support and dismisses negotiations, highlighting a troubling disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.

Over a million Ukrainians are dead or maimed, and the country is devastated. Recently, the Biden administration approved the use of anti-personnel mines, contradicting its previous stance against them. These mines, which resemble leaves, pose a danger to children and civilians. Questions arise about who is truly in charge in the White House, with speculation about figures like Antony Blinken or Jake Sullivan. The situation in Ukraine is grim, with the president acting like a dictator, suppressing dissent and imprisoning clergy. The complicity of Western European nations in this conflict reflects a dying empire, marked by nihilism and desperation. This chaotic period resembles the collapse of Rome, where a once-great power engages in self-destructive violence, leading to widespread suffering.

Canada believes Ukraine must win the war against Russia. Canada supports Ukraine using long-range weaponry. This support is to prevent Russia from degrading Ukrainian civilian infrastructure and killing innocent civilians in their unjust war.

Ukraine cannot win its war against Russia, even with extensive Western support. The situation is dire, with a significant loss of life among Ukrainians. Recently, the U.S. Senate proposed sending an additional $60 billion to Ukraine, despite its corrupt government and ongoing issues. There's a chance to stop this legislation in the Senate, but if it passes, the House could potentially improve or reject it. This funding not only supports Ukraine for 2024 but also ties future presidents' hands, limiting their diplomatic options. Many senators seem to believe prolonging the war serves Ukraine's interests, ignoring the reality that it leads to further destruction and suffering. Ultimately, the motivations appear to align more with military contractors than the well-being of Ukrainians.

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.

Despite extensive Western weapon supplies, Ukraine still needs more, indicating a proxy conflict where Ukraine provides manpower for a de facto NATO operation. This is driven by NATO's fear of a Russian victory and its impact on the alliance's survival. The US State Department described Ukraine as endemically corrupt and lawless in 2019, citing unlawful killings, torture, judicial issues, and restrictions on freedoms. Ukraine's military progress is insignificant, with heavy losses in the counteroffensive. Western media downplays these losses as Ukrainian soldiers face brutal conditions with outdated equipment and no air support. Some NATO allies are providing old, sometimes lethal, equipment to Ukraine in exchange for replacements, benefiting the military-industrial complex. Ukraine has paid contractors hundreds of millions for undelivered weapons, and some donated arms are only fit for scrap. The US has committed over $40 billion in military aid, yet much of Ukraine's arsenal is under repair. Small arms proliferation poses a significant risk, potentially leading to long-term instability. Weapons supplied by NATO are allegedly being used to target civilian populations in Donbas, Lugansk, and Belgrade.

Ukraine cannot win its war against Russia, even with extensive Western support. The ongoing conflict is leading to significant loss of life and economic degradation. Recently, the U.S. Senate proposed sending another $60 billion to Ukraine, despite its corrupt government and ongoing issues. There is a critical procedural vote that could potentially kill this legislation, and efforts are being made to sway Republican senators against it. This funding not only supports Ukraine in 2024 but also ties future presidential decisions, limiting diplomatic options. Many senators seem to believe prolonging the war serves Ukraine's interests, but this perspective overlooks the devastating impact on the Ukrainian population and distracts from pressing domestic issues.

I am working very hard to end the savage conflict in Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians and Russians have been needlessly killed or wounded in this horrific and brutal conflict with no end in sight. The United States has sent hundreds of billions of dollars to support Ukraine's defense with no security. Do you want to keep it going for another five years? 2,000 people are being killed every single week, or more. They're Russian young people. They're Ukrainian young people. They're not Americans, but I want it to stop. Meanwhile, Europe has sadly spent more money buying Russian oil and gas than they have spent on defending Ukraine by far. They've spent more buying Russian oil and gas than they have defending Ukraine.

President Zelensky urged Western supporters of Ukraine to join the fight against the Russian army due to Ukraine's disadvantage in population size. He called for assistance in the form of arms and manpower, emphasizing the importance of continuously sending soldiers to the front lines. However, despite repeated pleas, only a few individuals from the West chose to participate in the war effort. The majority opted not to get involved, potentially hindering the Ukrainian military and US war policy in Ukraine.

The United States has been sending hundreds of billions of dollars to support Ukraine's defense, with no end in sight, and with no security. Do you want to keep this going for another five years? Two thousand people, or more, are being killed every single week.

Tony Blinken is advocating for younger Ukrainians, specifically those aged 18 to 25, to be sent into combat against Russia, despite growing public support in Ukraine for a peace deal. Critics argue this approach is reckless, likening it to sacrificing youth in an unwinnable war to prolong conflict for U.S. interests, particularly against Russia, Iran, and China. The assertion is made that the U.S. is effectively controlling Ukraine, with claims that the CIA and State Department are orchestrating the situation. Despite indications from Ukrainian leadership that peace talks should be considered, the U.S. continues to push for more military support instead.

Many on the right oppose U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war, but the speaker believes it's a bargain for America. While the U.S. spends trillions on national defense, $20 billion sent to Ukraine has crippled the aggressive Russian military, which has been a challenge for multiple administrations. Putin miscalculated, thinking he could easily take Kyiv. Ukraine's success isn't just about numbers; NATO armaments and sophisticated microchip systems give them a technical advantage over Russia, which sometimes uses World War II-era ordnance. The speaker claims that Ukraine's superior technology has led to approximately 150,000 Russian soldier deaths. The Ukraine war has effectively neutralized Russia's fighting force as a global threat.