TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I was asked this week if I see Ukraine as an equal member in the peace process, and I didn't say "yes." However, Ukraine will have a seat at the table. I will never accept any decisions between the United States and Russia about Ukraine without Ukraine present. This is our war, and these are our human losses. We are thankful for all the support and unity from the USA, including bipartisan support. However, no leader in the world can make a deal with Putin about Ukraine without Ukraine being involved.

Speaker 0 calls to pressure Russia, noting that 'the credibility of these efforts these efforts we are undertaking today are depending on at least a ceasefire from the beginning of the serious negotiations from next step on.' He emphasizes 'this aspect' and states he would 'like to see a ceasefire from the next meeting, which should be a trilateral meeting wherever it take place.' He adds, 'Well, we're gonna let the president go over and talk to the president.' The remarks frame the demand for a ceasefire as a prerequisite for serious negotiations and indicate the next meeting should be trilateral, with discussions transitioning to the presidents.

I just had a conversation with the President of the United States. We discussed our shared goal of winning this war. We can and must make this year the year of victory. It's important to emphasize that this is not just a Russian war against Ukraine and Europe, but a war against democracy. We need to liberate all Ukrainian territory from Russian occupation and ensure long-term security with strong guarantees.

- Speaker 0 notes that vaccines and boosters are readily available, testing has been dramatically scaled with millions of rapid tests, and that 82 percent of adult Americans have taken the vaccine. He states that those not vaccinated are nine times more likely to be hospitalized or die from the virus, and emphasizes that the country is in a different place than a year ago, with ongoing work to fight the virus. - On the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR), Speaker 0 explains that the release totals 50,000,000 barrels, with 18,000,000 already congressionally required and accelerated by the president to provide immediate relief. The remaining 32,000,000 comes from an exchange, putting barrels on the market now in exchange for their return in the future. He describes the exchange as a tool matched to the current economic environment and notes the aim to lower costs for the American people, particularly gas prices ahead of the holiday season, while acknowledging the pandemic’s impact on the global cost of goods and gas. He also mentions pressing OPEC+ to increase supply and using every tool at the administration’s disposal to help working families. - When pressed about the 50,000,000 barrels figure, Speaker 0 refrains from further detail beyond the explanation that 18,000,000 were congressionally required and the rest come from the exchange arrangement. - On China, Speaker 0 clarifies that the president did not intend to separate China publicly, saying China may do more, but the president does not want to speak for any country. He notes that the president has had conversations with other countries and that the national security team has communicated with them; announcements will be made by those countries themselves. Speaker 1 asks whether the president spoke with Xi Jinping; Speaker 0 confirms they did talk, as referenced in a readout issued afterward, and that the president asked China to discuss helping with supply, without detailing further. - Regarding Ukraine, Speaker 1 asks for updates on White House assessments and plans for a possible phone call with President Putin. Speaker 0 says there is nothing to preview at this time, but reiterates that the United States remains in very close contact with European partners.

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.

There is concern from the Europeans that Zelensky is being bullied into signing something away, which is why European leaders are coming as backup tomorrow. They are coming here tomorrow because we've been working with the Europeans; the president invited them to come. The president told those European leaders last week that he wanted to cease fire, and he said on television he would walk out if Putin didn’t agree, with severe consequences if he didn’t. He spent three hours with Putin and did not get one. Our goal is a peace agreement to end this war. There was enough progress in the talks to move to the next phase. If peace is not possible and the war continues, thousands will die. The president could impose new sanctions, but that would end talks; it will require concessions from both sides.

Russian: Сегодняшняя повестка дня посвящена восстановлению российско-американских отношений. Администрация Трампа прилагает усилия для восстановления отношений, которые были практически сведены к нулю предыдущей администрацией. Состоялся телефонный разговор с президентом Трампом, контакты между министром иностранных дел и его американским коллегой, а также встреча Юрия Ушакова с коллегами. Также было упомянуто обращение президента Трампа о сохранении жизней украинских военнослужащих, заблокированных российскими войсками в Курской области. Обращается внимание на преступления украинских боевиков против гражданских лиц в зоне вторжения, квалифицированные Генеральной прокуратурой РФ как терроризм. В случае сдачи оружия и капитуляции, военнослужащим гарантируется жизнь и достойное обращение в соответствии с международным правом и законами РФ. Для реализации обращения президента США необходим приказ от военно-политического руководства Украины о сдаче оружия. English: Today's agenda focuses on the restoration of Russian-American relations. The Trump administration is making efforts to restore relations that were practically reduced to zero by the previous administration. There was a telephone conversation with President Trump, contacts between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his American counterpart, and a meeting between Yuri Ushakov and his counterparts. President Trump's appeal to spare the lives of Ukrainian servicemen blocked by Russian troops in the Kursk region was also mentioned. Attention is drawn to the crimes of Ukrainian militants against civilians in the invasion zone, classified by the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation as terrorism. In the event of surrender, servicemen are guaranteed life and decent treatment in accordance with international law and the laws of the Russian Federation. An order from the military-political leadership of Ukraine to surrender weapons is necessary to implement the US President's appeal.

Speaker: Discussing the future of Ukraine, Putin requested written plans from the Americans, but Biden refused to negotiate. This should have sparked concern in Germany, as a potential war would involve them. If conflict arises as the Americans warned, Germany will be drawn into the issue.

Speaking to reporters in Berlin, Speaker 0 described remarks in which the speaker said we must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents or great-grandparents endured, and that if we deliver on our commitments, the tragedy can be prevented, with specific reference to Ukraine. He added that the United States cannot be kept safe without a safe Europe, and expressed optimism that the United States and Europe can get on the same page regarding Ukraine. The remarks note there has been evident division between the White House under Donald Trump and European allies, as well as Ukraine, prompting a push to increase Europe’s defense production capability. This push spans the European Union and the United Kingdom, and is described as following pressure from the White House and Donald Trump for Europe to do more to ensure its own protection. In this context, Mark Ruta is quoted as saying that allied defense spending must rise.

The Alaska Summit reinforced my belief that while difficult pieces within reach, I believe that in a very significant step, President Putin agreed that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine, and this is one of the key points that we need to consider. We're going to be considering that at the table, also, like who will do what, essentially. I'm optimistic that collectively we can reach an agreement.

We will now talk about the future of Ukraine with you, as it seems you are serious about it. Putin had asked the Americans in December 2021 for written confirmation on how to handle Ukraine, but President Biden refused to negotiate on this matter. There should have been an uproar on the German side, as a potential war would involve Germany in the issue.

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.

Larry: Lavrov claimed Ukraine attempted to attack Putin’s official residence in Novgorod with around 91 long-range drones in December; allegedly all intercepted, no proof provided, no reported injuries or damage. Lavrov said retaliation is coming, targets for retaliatory strikes and timing had been set. Putin supposedly mentioned this on a call to Trump two days before the Zelensky meeting in Florida; Yuri, a Kremlin aide, said Putin was shocked and outraged, and that it would influence Washington’s approach to working with Zelensky. Russians claim Trump was relieved that no Tomahawk missiles were provided to Ukraine. No US confirmation; Trump described the meeting with Putin as very productive, and discussions included the temporary ceasefire not being an option. Budanov had suggested it wouldn’t be the first assassination attempt on Putin, but the most consequential due to timing. The question posed: who is the target—Ukraine, Zelensky, Budanov—or a Russian false flag to justify attacks and derail negotiations. Speaker 1: Timelines. The attack allegedly began the night of the 28th and continued into the 29th. The Russians say it was an attack on one of Putin’s residences, described as terrorism. Putin hasn’t lived at his residences for three years, using the Kremlin instead, but this is not the first Ukrainian attempt to target Putin; there was a proposed attack when he flew into Kursk by helicopter. Russians are upset that this attack had no military objective, only potential assassination, and they know Putin wasn’t there. The Russians view it as real and plan to respond; Lavrov indicated that negotiations would be reexamined. Budanov claims Ukrainian intelligence has targeted Putin multiple times; the attack timing coincides with Zelensky in Florida, suggesting possible rifts or risk of undermining negotiations. The possibility of Western (American or British) intelligence involvement is raised, with speculation about CIA influence or European intelligence, particularly Britain’s MI6, given its Ukrainian roots. The question remains whether the attack was staged to derail negotiations or a genuine strike. Larry: If Ukraine did this, why would they? Ukraine might want to eliminate an obstacle to peace, though that could backfire; some argue Putin is more restrained than any immediate successor. If 91 drones were launched, Western intelligence would likely be involved, possibly undermining Trump’s approach. There is a sense of mixed messages from U.S. intelligence, with individuals like Susan Miller pushing claims of Russian interference that contradict other narratives. Zelensky stated no territory would be ceded as part of negotiations; Russia’s position is that Crimea, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk must be permanently part of the Russian Federation, elections must occur in Ukraine before negotiations, NATO must be out of Ukraine, and demilitarization is non-negotiable. Russia suggests there will be no 800,000-man army; these conditions are not open for negotiation. Russia may be willing to discuss numbers of troops for Ukraine, but not to concede core territorial goals. Speaker 0: If CIA or other elements were behind this, could it be to undermine Trump or push for a peace deal by pressuring Putin? Putin showed up in uniform with the military leadership, signaling a hard stance on land/territory, stating that negotiations should proceed without ceasing. Some argue this would trigger a stronger Russian push, while others see this as undermining Trump’s efforts. Trump and Zelensky had discussed a peace plan with 90-95% agreement, with a few thorny issues, possibly territorial. Trump characterized their call as productive; Russia reportedly agreed to support Ukraine postwar with discounted energy and resources. Lavrov’s rapid response to the attack and the potential retaliation would affect ongoing negotiations, which some view as already derailed due to Ukraine’s intransigence on concessions. Speaker 1: Could European intelligence be involved? Britain’s MI6 is seen as critical; there is a suggestion that British intelligence could have acted without American consultation. This would strain relations with Trump, especially after new security strategy. The transcript also notes a broader shift in Western posture: some European leaders are pushing for stronger defense and a more independent European stance, which might influence the dynamic around negotiations and intelligence actions. Speaker 0: Zelensky’s Christmas remark, “may he perish,” followed by an attack on Putin’s residence, prompts questions about who’s pulling Zelensky’s strings. Zelensky is described as the “highest paid actor in the world” with large sums allegedly pilfered from Ukraine’s aid; Zelensky could be expendable to those steering Ukraine’s direction. The meeting in Mar-a-Lago between Zelensky, Trump, and others occurred while the Putin residence attack was underway, suggesting an attempt to undermine negotiations. Budanov’s connection to the CIA and potential independent actions by Ukrainian intelligence raise further concerns about internal Ukrainian divisions. Speaker 1: Russia’s potential retaliation could target Ukrainian intelligence assets like the SBU headquarters in Kyiv, or European assets inside Ukraine if evidence points to Western involvement. Russia’s current military actions include continuing strikes on power infrastructure, with movements in Zaporizhzhia and around Kherson, indicating an axis of attack. Independently, Russia claims significant ground progress; Ukraine counters with claims of selective advances by Russia and a favorable propaganda edge for Ukraine. The battlefield metrics show Russia increasing manpower and maintaining multiple axes of attack, with eight or more fronts, while Ukrainian recoveries of bodies show a ratio suggesting heavy Ukrainian losses. Speaker 0: The conversation ends with expectations for retaliation, possible new European involvement, and the enduring fear that negotiations remain unsettled. The next days could reveal more about who is behind the attack, how Russia responds, and whether a path to peace remains possible, given the conflicting narratives and competing strategic interests.

In de aanstaande Europese top wordt besproken dat de EU Oekraïne blijft steunen om te voorkomen dat Rusland wint. Er wordt beweerd dat de oorlog eigenlijk een proxy-oorlog is tussen de NAVO en Rusland, waarbij Oekraïne het slachtoffer is. Er wordt ook gesuggereerd dat Oekraïne militair al verloren heeft van Rusland. Verder wordt er gesproken over vertrouwelijke documenten en de financiering van Forum voor Democratie. De spreker bekritiseert het Westen voor het koloniseren van Oekraïne en het voeren van een zinloze oorlog om Rusland te schaden. Translation: In the upcoming European summit, it is discussed that the EU will continue to support Ukraine to prevent Russia from winning. It is argued that the war is actually a proxy war between NATO and Russia, with Ukraine as the victim. It is also suggested that Ukraine has already lost militarily to Russia. Additionally, there is talk about confidential documents and the funding of Forum for Democracy. The speaker criticizes the West for colonizing Ukraine and engaging in a pointless war to harm Russia.

Speaker 0: "You know there is concern from the Europeans that president Zelensky is going to be bullied into signing something away." "That’s why you have these European leaders coming as backup tomorrow." Speaker 1: "It isn't. ... They're not coming here tomorrow to keep Zelenskyy from being bullied." He adds: "We've had one meeting with Putin and, like, a dozen meetings with Zelensky." "We've been working with these people for weeks." "They're coming here tomorrow because they chose to come here tomorrow." He notes "there was enough progress" to "move to the next phase" and "enough movement to justify a follow-up meeting with Zelensky and the Europeans." On sanctions, he says: "If peace is not gonna be possible here... the president has that option to then come in and impose new sanctions. But if he did this now, ... that's the end of the talks." "We wanna wind up with a peace deal that ends this war" and "It will require both sides to make concessions."

German summary: Berlin begrüßt das Treffen mit Präsident Selenskyj und betont, dass der russische Angriffskrieg die Wunde der europäischen Teilung wieder aufreißt. Vor dem Alaska-Gespräch mit Präsident Trump wurden Abstimmungen mit Frankreich, Großbritannien, Polen, Italien, Finnland sowie Ursula von der Leyen, Antonio Costa und Mark Rutte geführt; Selenskyj war von Anfang an einbezogen. Deutschland verweist auf intensive Krisendiplomatie: "Deutschland allein hat seit 2022 rund 40 Milliarden Euro an Militärhilfen mobilisiert" und "Wir haben in der Europäischen Union bisher 18 Sanktionspakete geschnürt." Die Verhandlungsziele betonen, dass "die Ukraine muss mit am Tisch sitzen, sobald es dann Folgetreffen gibt" und "Ein Waffenstillstand muss am Anfang stehen." Kernpunkte: territoriale Fragen sind möglich; "die sogenannte Kontaktlinie der Ausgangspunkt sein" und "eine rechtliche Anerkennung russischer Besetzungen steht nicht zur Debatte"; "robuste Sicherheits garantien" sowie Transatlantik-Strategie. Trump will informieren Zelensky und europäische Führer; es gibt Hoffnung auf Bewegung und Frieden. Sicherheitsgarantien wurden kurz besprochen; konkrete Ausgestaltung folgt. English translation: Berlin welcomes the meeting with President Zelensky and notes that the Russian aggression has reopened the wound of European division. Before the Alaska talks with President Trump, consultations were held with France, the United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Finland, as well as Ursula von der Leyen, Antonio Costa and Mark Rutte; Zelensky was involved from the start. Germany points to intensive crisis diplomacy: "Germany alone has mobilized around 40 billion euros in military aid since 2022" and "We have in the European Union so far 18 sanctions packages." The negotiating goals emphasize that "the Ukraine must be at the table when further meetings occur" and "a ceasefire must be at the beginning." Key points: territorial questions are possible; "the so-called contact line must be the starting point" and "no legal recognition of Russian occupations." "robust security garantien" and a transatlantic strategy. Trump will inform Zelensky and European leaders; there is hope for movement and peace. Security guarantees were discussed briefly; concrete details follow.

Zusammenfassung der Aussagen: "Die NATO lebt noch im Frieden mit Russland, ja", aber "Russland in der Tat testet uns" und "kennt Zwischenzustände zwischen Frieden und Krieg". Es ist "vollkommen klar, dass Russland uns jetzt testen will" und dass "Russland Souveränitätsrechte von NATO Staaten verletzt werden wird weiterhin, davon müssen wir ausgehen" – daher "da muss es eine sehr klare Antwort geben." Abschließend: "Wir leben nicht mehr im Frieden mit Russland" "Wir leben nicht in einem vollständigen Frieden." Summary: "The NATO lives still in peace with Russia, yes" but "Russia in fact tests us" and "knows intermediate states between peace and war". It is "completely clear that Russia is testing us now" and that "Russia will continue to violate the sovereignty rights of NATO states, that must be expected"—therefore "there must be a clear response." Finally, "We are not living in a complete peace."

As of right now, there is no ceasefire in place, and we've seen Russia continue its attacks on Ukraine. The question is what indications the president is getting from Putin that he wants to have this meeting with Zelensky soon, because he spoke to him directly yesterday. And he expressed that rather He than spoke to that directly yesterday, and the president put that in his statement that he gave to all of you, the news media, knowing you'd be asking following that conversation in the effort of transparency. The remark references a direct contact yesterday and a statement issued to the media in the effort of transparency.

It's surprising that a call between Trump and Putin occurred, and even more so that negotiations were discussed as the meeting concluded, leaving many unable to react. This raises concerns that Trump and Putin might reach agreements without considering the interests of Ukraine and Europe. This development comes after the new US Defense Minister, Pete Haxhes, during his visit, stated firmly that US troops would not participate in security arrangements in Ukraine. The US also doesn't believe that NATO membership is a realistic outcome of negotiations. Haxhes dismissed Ukraine's hopes of regaining all occupied territories, including Crimea, calling it unrealistic.

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.

Participants discuss the potential outcomes of a meeting with Vladimir Putin. The best case is that no damage occurs; the worst is that Donald Trump concedes to Putin on Ukraine, with fear that Trump will be swayed by Putin. The speaker notes Putin is an international pariah indicted for war crimes and has been granted the privilege of meeting the U.S. president in Alaska. They express concern that Washington may signal concessions on Ukraine, including possible territorial trade. Trump reportedly says he will listen to Putin, while Europeans doubt the reliability of U.S. commitments amid Trump's mercurial policies. Some warn Europeans cannot trust U.S. statements, and question whether the Trump administration will sustain any security guarantees to Ukraine in the years ahead.

The Alaska summit reinforced my belief that “president Putin agreed that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine,” a key point to consider. “I'm optimistic that, collectively, we can reach an agreement that would deter any future aggression against Ukraine,” though I also note, “I actually think there won't be. I think that's even over overrated, largely overrated.” European nations are gonna take a lot of the burden; “we're gonna help them, and we're gonna make it very secure.” We also need to discuss “the possible exchanges of territory taken into consideration the current line of contact.” That means “the war zone, the war lines that are pretty obvious, very sad, actually, to look at them.” The next step: “a trilateral meeting, and that will be worked out.” “I have a feeling you and president Putin are gonna work something out.” Ultimately, Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, with Putin, must decide. “I'll set up a meeting with President Putin.” “All of us would obviously prefer an immediate ceasefire … maybe something like that could happen.” “As of this moment, it's not happening.” “I believe a peace agreement … is very attainable,” and “The next step would be for a trilateral meeting, and that will be worked out.”

Ray McGovern, a former CIA officer who chaired the National Intelligence Estimate and prepared daily briefs for the president, discusses the newly released US national security strategy and its implications for the war in Ukraine, as well as broader US-Russia and US-Europe dynamics. - McGovern notes a dramatic shift in the national security strategy’s emphasis. He observes it prioritizes the Western Hemisphere, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, with Russia treated as part of Europe. He contrasts this with past eras, recalling Paul Wolfowitz’s post–Gulf War doctrine, which asserted US primacy and the ability to act that Russia could not stop, and he emphasizes the stark difference between that era and the current document. - He recounts a historical anecdote from 1991–1992: Wolfowitz’s belief that the US could win where others could not, followed by a warning to General Wesley Clark that Russia would challenge US primacy as times changed. He points to subsequent US actions in Iraq (2003) and Syria (2015) as evidence of a shift in capability to project power, and he argues that in 2022 Russia halted US plans by preventing NATO expansion into Ukraine. - McGovern interprets the current strategy as signaling a recalibration: the US may be acknowledging a changing balance of power, with a focus on deterring Russia and stabilizing relations with Moscow, while recognizing that Europe is central to strategic calculations. He stresses that Russia’s core principle, in its view, is to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, and he underscores that the strategy doc frames core interests as seeking strategic stability with Russia and a negotiated modus vivendi, though he notes these appear as a “castaway” in the Europe section. - He discusses ongoing high-level discussions in Berlin involving Witkoff (Wittkop) and Jared Kushner, and Zelenskyy’s positions on NATO membership and security assurances. He recalls past European reactions, including Rubio’s role in watering down European talking points and US–Russian negotiations, suggesting a pattern of European concessions followed by US–Russian engagement that sidelines European voices. - McGovern argues that Russia has “won the war” on the battlefield and that Moscow’s tactic is gradual, minimizing Ukrainian casualties while consolidating control over parts of Donetsk and other territorial objectives. He asserts Putin’s priority is to maintain a workable relationship with the United States, with Ukraine as a secondary concern. He also notes Trump’s stated interest in improving US-Russia relations, including a willingness to consider extending New START, and he highlights that Moscow would react to whether Trump commits to the treaty’s limits for another year, which would influence Moscow’s strategic calculations. - The discussion covers the internal US debate over how to handle Ukraine and whether to pursue negotiations with Russia. McGovern argues that the reality of Russia’s position and Ukraine’s losses complicate any simple “win” scenario for Ukraine, and he suggests that a negotiated settlement might eventually emerge if a durable US–Russia relationship can be pursued, given Russia’s advances on the battlefield and its leverage in European security. - They discuss John Mearsheimer’s realist perspective, arguing that Western expansion toward Ukraine contributed to the conflict, and that voices emphasizing NATO enlargement as the sole cause are contested. McGovern mentions Obama’s warnings not to give Ukraine illusions of prevailing against Russia and to avoid escalation, and he contrasts this with Stoltenberg’s statements about Russia’s preconditions for peace. - They also critique EU moves to seize Russian assets to fund Ukraine, suggesting that European leaders may be acting to preserve political power rather than align with the public’s long-term interests, and question whether such measures will endure or provoke wider political backlash. - In closing, McGovern reiterates that Russia has the upper hand for now, with the war’s outcome dependent on political decisions in Washington and Moscow, particularly whether Trump can extend New START, and whether European and US policymakers can sustain a realistic approach to security guarantees and the balance of power in Europe. The conversation ends with a cautious note about the potential for a settlement but ongoing uncertainties about the strategic environment and transatlantic politics.

Speaker 1 argues that the United States has repeatedly engaged in illegal military actions and regime changes in multiple countries, starting with the bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a European state, with the aim of breaking Serbia and installing Bondsteel, a large NATO base in the Balkans, under Clinton. They claim this was done without UN authority and described as a NATO mission. Speaker 1 continues, alleging that the US has subsequently waged war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, where, according to them, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton tasked the CIA with overthrowing Bashar al-Assad. They also claim NATO illegally bombed Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and that in Kyiv in February 2014 the US overthrew Yanukovych together with right-wing Ukrainian military forces, noting that the overthrow happened the day after EU representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych for early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand-down of both sides. They assert that the US supported the new government immediately afterward, despite that agreement and without addressing it as unconstitutional. Speaker 1 asserts that Russia, the United States, and the EU were parties to the 2015 Minsk two agreement, which was unanimously voted on by the UN Security Council, signed by the government of Ukraine, and guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. They contend that Minsk II was dismissed as a holding pattern by inside-US government circles, despite the UN Security Council approval. They claim Angela Merkel later said Minsk II was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine time to build its strength, countering the assertion that Minsk II was meant to end the war. The speaker emphasizes distrust of the United States government and calls for all sides to sit down publicly to agree on terms, with both the United States and Russia committing to specific boundaries, and for NATO not to enlarge, so that a written, global judgment can be made. Speaker 2 adds that there has been an ongoing effort to create an anti-Russian platform in Ukraine, describing it as an enclave, and accusing the US and its allies of lying about not expanding NATO multiple times. Speaker 3 states that President Putin sent a draft treaty asking NATO to promise no more enlargement as a precondition for not invading Ukraine, and notes that this draft was not signed.