TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @ricwe123
@ricwe123 - Richard
So here we have former Israeli Minister of Defense,Benny Gantz saying: "I’m not ruling out putting US boots on the ground in Iran" https://t.co/t1l111Hz4s
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on whether there will be boots on the ground. Speaker 1 says they would not exclude this possibility for those reasons or any others, but the decision will depend on how things unfold going forward. The question is raised about whether Israeli boots on the ground might be included; Speaker 1 responds, “I exclude nothing,” noting they have been waiting for forty-seven years and that every necessary means should be taken in order to achieve their goals.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you think eventually there'll be a need for boots on the ground?
Speaker 1: I would not exclude it for deal those reasons or other, but we'll have to see how it goes
Speaker 0: forward. And will that include Israeli boots on the ground, do
Speaker 1: you think? I I exclude nothing. We've been waiting for forty seven years, and we came to a point with every every necessary means should be taken in order to achieve our goals.
Speaker 0: What we're seeing from
reSee.it AI Summary
I describe an unarmed Iranian ship invited to an Indian naval exercise with the US; the US withdrew, then torpedoed the ship and refused to rescue the sailors, leaving the Sri Lankan Navy to recover the bodies. This was treachery, an ambush under diplomacy and a collapse of sea norms. Instead of outrage, the American media seems indifferent or to rationalize; atrocities are normalized, cruelty framed as strategy, blurring reporting and complicity.
@ricwe123 - Richard
An unarmed Iranian ship was invited to take part in an Indian naval exercise alongside the United States. Its sailors were welcomed on land and paraded before the president as a gesture of cooperation. Then, at the last moment, the United States abruptly withdrew from the exercise,only to turn around and torpedo the very ship it had just stood beside. What followed was even more grotesque. After attacking an unarmed vessel, the US refused to rescue the sailors it had thrown into the sea, abandoning them to drown. The grim work of recovering bodies was left to the Sri Lankan Navy. This wasn’t warfare,it was treachery of the most disgraceful kind: an ambush carried out under the pretense of diplomacy, followed by a cold refusal to show even the most basic human decency to the dying. It would represent a collapse of every norm that supposedly governs civilized conduct at sea. And yet, instead of outrage, much of the American media response has been indifference or rationalization. The bombing of a girls’ school is brushed aside; talk of carpet-bombing Tehran is floated as if it were just another policy option. When atrocities are normalized and cruelty is laundered into “strategy,” the line between reporting and complicity begins to disappear.
@ricwe123 - Richard
There was a time when German mainstream media bothered telling the public that the Ukrainian government was terrorizing the people living in Donbas and Luhansk. That era is long gone, buried beneath a mountain of lies and propaganda..... https://t.co/Hy8UcQrkcb
Video Transcript AI Summary
Georg Restle of Westdeutscher Rundfunk offers a commentary on the European Union’s responsibility amid violence in eastern Ukraine. He foregrounds the gravity of the conflict by citing UN figures: over 1,000 dead, about 3,500 injured, and around 100,000 displaced. The situation is described as war in Europe, one of the dirtiest the continent has seen in decades. People in Donetsk and Luhansk are experiencing conditions reminiscent of past wars: no electricity or water, scarce bread, and daily fear of being buried under the rubble of their homes. The demand is clear: the war must end, but not through vague pleas or one-sided appeals.
Restle argues that Western leaders who rightly call on Vladimir Putin to stop Russia’s backing of pro-Russian militias must also support the Ukrainian government. He emphasizes that the UN report is unambiguous: the Ukrainian military also terrorizes civilians, using artillery fire in residential settings and showing little regard for the distress and lives of ordinary people. This, he states, is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by Europe.
He further asserts that Moscow is complicit in a broader cycle of violence, as it bears responsibility for a “soldateska” that abducts, tortures, and murders innocents. In light of this, Europe’s governments also bear responsibility for the actions of the Kyiv government that they helped bring to power. Restle insists that a clear message must now be directed at those in Kyiv: the terror against civilians must end, and artillery shelling of living areas must stop immediately.
If such demands are not met, Restle warns that Europe would become complicit in the killings. The conclusion draws a stark moral equation: the dead civilians in the house-to-house fighting in Donetsk or Luhansk would also be Europe’s dead, if European policy remains passive or one-sided. The transcript centers on a call for accountability and balanced pressure—holding all parties to ceasefire commitments and civilian-targeted violence, while recognizing the shared responsibility Europeans would bear if the fighting continues without decisive action.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Welche Verantwortung trägt die Europäische Union angesichts der Gewalt im Osten der Ukraine? Dazu ein Kommentar von Georg Restle vom Westdeutschen Rundfunk.
Speaker 1: Über 1000 Tote, dreieinhalbtausend Verletzte, 100000 auf der Flucht. Wer die Zahlen der Vereinten Nationen von heute ernst nimmt, der sollte aufhören, in der Ukraine von einem Konflikt oder Aufstand zu sprechen. Nein, dies ist Krieg mitten in Europa. Und es ist 1 der schmutzigsten, den dieser Kontinent in den letzten Jahrzehnten gesehen hat. Was die Menschen in Donezk oder Luhansk in diesen Tagen erleben, ist ein Albtraum, den die meisten von uns nur noch von den Erzählungen ihrer Eltern oder Großeltern kennen.
Kein Strom und kein Wasser, kaum noch Brot zum Essen und die tägliche Angst, schon morgen von den Trümmern des eigenen Hauses begraben zu werden. Ja, dieser Krieg muss aufhören. Aber mit wohlfeilen Appellen ist es längst nicht mehr getan, schon gar nicht mit einseitigen. Wenn westliche Politiker Wladimir Putin zu Recht auffordern, Russlands Unterstützung für die prorussischen Terrormilizen zu beenden, dann, ja dann müssen sie jetzt auch der ukrainischen Regierung in den Arm fallen. Denn der Bericht der UN ist unmissverständlich.
Auch das ukrainische Militär terrorisiert die Zivilbevölkerung. Es trägt den Krieg mit Artilleriefeuer in Wohn- und Schlafzimmer. Es nimmt kaum Rücksicht auf die Not der Menschen und auf deren Leben offenbar noch weniger. Dies kann, dies darf Europa nicht dulden. So wie Moskau mitverantwortlich ist für eine Soldateska, die Unschuldige entführt, foltert und mordet, so tragen Europas Regierungen Mitverantwortung für das rücksichtslose Töten 1 Regierung, der sie selbst zur Macht verholfen haben.
Deshalb braucht es jetzt eine klare Botschaft an die Machthaber in Kiew. Der Terror gegen die Zivilbevölkerung muss beendet, der Artilleriebeschuss von Wohngebieten sofort eingestellt werden. Wenn nicht, macht sich Europa mitschuldig. Dann sind die getöteten Zivilisten im Häuserkampf von Donezk oder Luchansk auch unsere Toten.
@ricwe123 - Richard
That moment when retired US diplomat, Robert Ford, admitted that he and British MI6 helped rebranding Abu Mohammad al-Julani, former headchopper of Al Queda, now Syrian President. Western officials whitewashing terrorists to suit their agenda...... https://t.co/yRESYGvJnx
Video Transcript AI Summary
Starting in 2023, a British nongovernment organization, which specializes in conflict resolution, invited me to help them bring this guy out of the terrorist world and into regular politics. And at first, I have to tell you, I was very leery of going. I sort of had images of me in an orange jumpsuit with a knife to my throat. But after talking to several people who had gone in, and one of whom had met him, I decided to take the chance. And so the first time I met him, this guy's name, is known to Gare, was Abdul Qatir Jolani, but his actual name is Ahmed Sharah, which he only revealed to the world after he captured Damascus in the Blitzkrieg of December 2024, about five months ago.
First time I met him, I sat down next to him, and I'm literally as close as I am to Roy. And I said, this is all in Arabic, I said, never in a million years could I imagine that I would be sitting next to you. Long beard, thin fatigues. And he looked at me, he speaks very softly. And he said, me neither.
And we went on and actually had a pretty civil conversation. I share this because he said something which really piqued my interest. He never apologized, never apologized for the terrorist attacks in Iraq or in Syria, although there were many fewer in Syria. Never apologized. But he also said, you know, now I am governing an opposition held area of Northwest Syria, and I am learning that the tactics and the principles that I was following in Iraq do not apply when you actually have to govern 4,000,000 people.
And they had 2,000,000 residents of that area of Syria, and then another 2,000,000 refugees who had come there from other parts of Syria. So they had a population of 4,000,000. He said, I am learning that to govern, you have to make compromises. I was very struck by that. So that was in March 2023, just over two years ago.
We went back a second time in September.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Starting in 2023, a British nongovernment organization, which specializes in conflict resolution, invited me to help them bring this guy out of the terrorist world and into regular politics. And at first, I have to tell you, I was very leery of going. I sort of had images of me in an orange jumpsuit with a knife to my throat. But after talking to several people who had gone in, and one of whom had met him, I decided to take the chance. And so the first time I met him, this guy's name, is known to Gare, was Abdul Qatir, Jolani, but his actual name is Ahmed Sharah, which he only revealed to the world after he captured Damascus in the Blitzkrieg of December 2024, about five months ago.
First time I met him, I sat down next to him, and I'm literally as close as I am to Roy. And I said, this is all in Arabic, I said, never in a million years could I imagine that I would be sitting next to you. Long beard, thin fatigues. And he looked at me, he speaks very softly. And he said, me neither.
And we went on and actually had a pretty civil conversation. I I share this because he said something which really piqued my interest. He never apologized, never apologized for the terrorist attacks in Iraq or in Syria, although there were many fewer in Syria. Never apologized. But he also said, you know, now I am governing an opposition held area of Northwest Syria, and I am learning that the tactics and the principles that I was following in Iraq do not apply when you actually have to govern 4,000,000 people.
And they had 2,000,000 residents of that area of Syria, and then another 2,000,000 refugees who had come there from other parts of Syria. So they had a population of 4,000,000. He said, I am learning that to govern, you have to make compromises. I was very struck by that. So that was in March 2023, just over two years ago.
We went back a second time in September.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note that the British public rejects Digital ID for the first time, with 47% opposing and 38% supporting. This isn’t noise or convenience—it's about power, surveillance as governance, and data as leverage. The fatigue I see signals systemic rot and authoritarian drift, not an individual failure. I oppose this completely: a Digital ID is a tool of control, making freedom conditional and power centralized.
@ricwe123 - Richard
THIS IS A BREAKING POINT, AND A WARNING: For the first time, the British public is no longer buying the lie. What was waved away for months as paranoia or fringe resistance has now crystallized into a blunt reality: a clear majority of people in the United Kingdom reject a Digital ID. Not a statistical fluke. Not background noise. A decisive reversal. Support: 38% (–19 points) Opposition: 47% (+22 points) YouGov confirms it: this is the first unmistakable public rejection of digital identification. And it matters immensely. This is what happens when propaganda loses its grip and people finally recognize what is being done to them. Let’s stop pretending this is about convenience. That excuse has collapsed. This is about power. About surveillance as governance. About the seizure of data as leverage. About who gets to decide whether you are allowed to exist within society. The image now circulating says everything. A leader with their hand over their face. Not defiance. Not leadership. Not resolve. Just fatigue. The unmistakable look of an institution that knows it has lost the public, yet refuses to stop. This is not an individual’s failure , it is systemic rot made visible. A bureaucracy that has outlived its legitimacy, still pushing forward because it no longer knows how to do anything else. This is what authoritarian drift looks like when it begins to crack. I will be unequivocal: I oppose this completely. A Digital ID is not a harmless technological upgrade. It is an instrument of control. Once identity, behavior, transactions, and access are fused into a single system, freedom becomes conditional. Compliance becomes currency. And power is irreversibly transferred,not to the public, but away from it. This is not progress. It is submission, rebranded....
reSee.it AI Summary
I recall Victoria Nuland in 2016 bragging to Congress how the US effectively colonized Ukraine after 2014: 12 US advisors in ministries, American-trained cops in 18 cities, 60 banks shuttered, $266M to train Ukrainian troops. And somehow the war is still unprovoked.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Remember that moment when Victoria Nuland in 2016, was openly bragging to Congress about how the US practically colonized Ukraine after the 2014 coup? She didn’t even try to sugarcoat it: 12 US advisors shoved into Ukrainian ministries, American-trained cops in 18 cities, the US Treasury obliterating 60 banks while sparing depositors, and $266 million poured into training Ukrainian troops. And somehow we’re still supposed to swallow the nonsense that this war was "unprovoked" 😂😂😂
Video Transcript AI Summary
The presentation outlines the scope and impact of United States support to Ukraine, detailing how American resources and expertise are engaged across multiple areas to assist Ukraine’s reform efforts. US advisers are operating in almost a dozen Ukrainian ministries and localities, where they help to deliver public services, eliminate fraud and abuse, improve tax collection, and modernize Ukrainian institutions. This involvement aims to strengthen governance, promote accountability, and foster more efficient and transparent public administration at both central and local levels.
In addition to governance work, US support extends to security and law enforcement. With US assistance, newly vetted and trained police officers are patrolling the streets of 18 Ukrainian cities, contributing to public safety and the enforcement of the rule of law at the local level. In the judicial sphere, free legal aid attorneys funded by the United States have been active in Ukrainian courtrooms, and they have won two thirds of all acquittals, highlighting the role of publicly supported legal assistance in upholding defendants’ rights and supporting fair proceedings across the country.
Financial sector reform is another focus of the collaboration, with Treasury and State Department advisers helping Ukraine shutter over 60 failed banks and protect the assets of depositors. This effort addresses systemic risks in the financial system, aims to restore confidence among savers and investors, and stabilizes the broader economy by removing insolvent or fraudulent institutions from operation and safeguarding public funds.
A central premise of the security-related aid is that reform cannot be achieved without security, and therefore a substantial portion of the assistance is allocated to the security sector. Specifically, over $266,000,000 of US support has been directed to security sector activities, including training 1,200 soldiers and 750 Ukrainian National Guard personnel, as well as equipping them with life-saving gear. This investment reflects a commitment to enhancing Ukraine’s defensive and law enforcement capacities as part of a comprehensive reform program.
Looking ahead, the plan for Fiscal Year 2016 emphasizes continuing the training and equipment programs for Ukraine’s border guards, military personnel, and coast guard forces. The ongoing emphasis on training, equipment, and professional development for these security and border-related forces indicates a sustained US commitment to strengthening Ukraine’s ability to manage border security, deter threats, and support sovereign governance.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And US advisers serve in almost a dozen Ukrainian ministries and localities, helping to deliver services, eliminate fraud and abuse, improve tax collection, and modernize Ukrainian institutions. With US help, newly vetted and trained police officers are patrolling the cities the streets of 18 Ukrainian cities. In courtrooms across Ukraine, free legal aid attorneys funded by The US have won two thirds of all the acquittals in the countries. Treasury and State Department advisers have helped Ukraine shutter over 60 failed banks and protected the assets of depositors. And since there can be no reform in Ukraine without security, over $266,000,000 of our support has been in the security sector, training 1,200 soldiers and 750 Ukrainian National Guard personnel, and supplying life saving gear.
In FY '16, we are continuing that training and equipment of more of Ukraine's border guards, military, and coast guard.
@ricwe123 - Richard
All the time we are told how the war in Ukraine is somehow "unprovoked" But then i see this video from Joe Biden in 2016: "We led a coup in Ukraine, installed a government, looted, and played both sides" https://t.co/0aropdaj2d
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker notes that they are not the pen pal but the phone pal of Poroshenko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and now the speaker themselves. For the last four years, they have been on the phone two to three hours a week with those folks. There is an overwhelming instinct in Europe to say, before you guys became president, this was owned by Russia anyway. They ask, what difference does it make? Why are you making us engage in these sanctions? The speaker recalls last year, they were authorized to say they’d do the second tranche of a billion dollars, and he didn’t fire his chief prosecutor. Because the speaker has the confidence of the president, they were there. They said, “I’m not signing it. Until you fire him, we’re not signing it.” They clarified, “We’re not doing it.” Until you form a new government and you actually bring in someone who will move on this, they’re not playing. It’s not because they’re trying to play hardball, but because they know if they give an excuse to the EU, there are at least five countries right now that want to say, wooah, want out.
What they are putting together now is a basic detailed road map of who goes first and who goes second. There are two pieces: one is the security guarantees that are to flow from Russia, and two, the political steps that Ukraine has to take. Some of the steps are very difficult to take. They’ve already done the energy piece, they’ve done some other things, but the point is that when you say the dumb boss is gonna have a special status and you’re gonna amend your constitution, it’s like saying, okay, you know, Texas and Wyoming—Texas is gonna have a special status that we don’t want because we want Mexico to have more influence in Texas. And we’re gonna pass that through the United States Congress. So there are some really tough stuff they’ve gotta do. They’re willing, and the speaker is convinced they will do it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: No. I I am not the pen pal, but the phone pal of Poroshenko and Arseny Yat sen Yuk and now the speaker. I literally, without exaggeration, the last four years I'm on the phone, two to three hours a week with with with those folks. There's an overwhelming instinct in Europe to say, hey, before you guys became president, this was owned by Russia anyway. They had a puppet there.
What difference does it make? What the hell is the difference? Why are you making us engage in these sanctions? You remember last year, I was authorized to say we'd do the second tranche of a billion dollars and he didn't fire his his chief prosecutor? And because I have the confidence of the president, I was there.
Said, I'm not signing it. Until you fire him, we're not signing it, man. Get it straight. We're not doing it. Till you form a new government and you actually bring in someone who will move on this, we're not playing.
Not because we're trying to play hardball, because we know if they give an excuse to the EU, there are at least five countries right now that wanna say, woah, want out. At least five right now. And so what we put together, we're putting together now, is a basic detailed road map of who goes first and who goes second. And there's two pieces of this, folks. One is the security guarantees that are to flow from Russia, and two, the political steps that Ukraine has to take.
And some of the steps are very difficult to take. They've already done the energy piece, they've done some other things, but my point is that when you say the dumb boss is gonna have a special status and you're gonna amend your constitution, it's like saying, okay, you know, Texas and Wyoming Texas is gonna have a special status that we don't want because we want Mexico to have more influence in Texas. And we're gonna pass that through the United States Congress. So there's some really tough stuff they've gotta do. They're willing I'm convinced they will do it.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Here’s the raw truth the Western media won’t touch. Back in 2008, US Senator Bill Bradley called NATO’s expansion a colossal screw-up. He said it broke promises made to Gorbachev. Bradley warned it’d backfire, locking us into a cycle of hostility with Russia,and look where we are now.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses deep sadness about the current situation with Russia, noting extensive time spent in Russia in the 1980s and 1990s and connections with people who ran the government then. He argues that a fundamental error by the United States in the mid to late 1980s and early 1990s was the expansion of NATO. He emphasizes that after the Cold War was won, there was debate about NATO’s future, and the idea of expanding it arose despite it being a bureaucracy that “works.”
The speaker recounts a key episode from the reunification negotiations with Germany. He says that during those talks, Gorbachev and Jim Baker discussed the treaty, which stated that there would be no NATO troops in East Germany, and Baker told Gorbachev that if Germany were reunified and NATO expanded beyond that, NATO would not expand “one inch further east.” The speaker states that Gorbachev told him and others that Baker had promised this interpretation, and that Gorbachev also told Coal (likely a reference to other Russian officials) the same thing, which he says was new information. He asserts that the first Bush administration kept this promise, or at least appeared to honor it, pursuing a partnership for peace that Russians somewhat liked.
With the Clinton administration, the speaker asserts, the first thing done in his first term was to expand NATO. He questions the rationale, referencing Strobe Talbot’s Foreign Affairs article on why NATO was expanded, and implies the reasons were insufficient. In conversations with Russians who ran for president in 1996 and 2000, he recalls a question from the Urals about why the Americans were expanding NATO, noting that although NATO is a military alliance, Russians might not understand puts and calls but do understand tanks. He quotes a Russian politician who says, “Russians might not be able to understand puts and calls, but they certainly understand tanks.”
The speaker uses a banking analogy: a friend or supporter goes bankrupt, and you call to offer encouragement; instead, the United States “kicked them when they were down” by expanding NATO. He contends that this expansion created the justification for authoritarianism’s return in Russia and characterizes it as a blunder of monumental proportions. He reflects that at Oxford he studied Cold War origins and believes the Russians were responsible for much of it, describing the expansion as born of bureaucratic inertia within NATO, or, in the worst case, a self-fulfilling prophecy among certain Clinton-era officials who believed Russia would forever be the enemy.
Looking forward, the speaker suggests a missed opportunity for a strategic partnership built on common long-term threats and cooperation, noting that Russia would have been a significant partner given its oil and regional influence. He concludes with a sense of profound sadness, arguing that the United States created a problem that could have been avoided and lost an important long-term partner, especially on today’s most threatening issues.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On Russia, this is a this is a terribly sad, thing for me because I spent a lot of time in the eighties and early nineties on Russia. I'd go there every year. I'd spend weeks there. I traveled all over. I got to know most of the people who ran the government and who are now there.
And I think that right now, we're confronted with something that potentially could have been avoided. And the fundamental blunder that The United States made in the mid eighties, late late eighties, early nineties was the expansion of NATO. I mean, here we'd won the Cold War. We'd won the Cold War. And you then had people saying, well, now what are we gonna do with NATO?
Oh, well, don't I know. It's a bureaucracy. It works. What are we gonna do with it? And so then the idea of expanding NATO.
And the problem with it is the is this. During the negotiation for the reunification of Germany, Gorbachev and Jim Baker Jim Baker says to Gorbachev, you know, in the treaty, it says, you know, no NATO troops in what was in East Germany. In the discussions and I had this conversation with Gorbachev last summer. He told me very directly, conversation with Jim Baker. Question was, Baker saying, NATO if you agree to reunification of Germany in NATO, no expand NATO will not expand one inch further east, which is what I went to see Gorbachev to confirm because I care so much about this.
Is this true? Now the interpretation on the American side, Scowcroft says, well, he misinterpreted. Baker, I can't haven't quite penned down. But Gorbachev says very specifically, he he said if you expand one inch further if you allow reunification, Germany and NATO, NATO will not expand one inch further east. And then Gorbachev told me, coal told him the same thing, which was new information.
Right? So the first Bush keeps keeps his promise. Assume it's a promise. We're talking about partnership for peace and, you know, Russians kinda like that idea. And then Clinton comes in.
What's the early thing he does in his first term? Expands NATO. Why expand NATO? And I read the and I've been rereading because I've been thinking of writing something about this. Strobe Talbot's article in Foreign Affairs about why expand NATO.
When you read it and you say, that's a reason? You know? And last summer, again, I'm talking to a number of people that I've known for many years. Two guys who ran for president in Russia in 1996 and 2000. And, you know, one of them says to me, I'm out campaigning in the Urals.
Somebody comes up to me and says, this is '96. Why why are the Americans expanding NATO? Isn't that a military alliance? And they said, well, yeah, but it's it's a military alliance. And the guy said the politician said, Russians might not be able to understand puts and calls, but they certainly understand tanks.
Right? And think of it this way, what would any politics one zero one, somebody who's a friend, supporter, goes bankrupt? What do you do? You call them up on the phone and say, you know, Joe, it's tough. I know you things are gonna be okay.
You're gonna be back. You know, you show them some respect. And what did we do? We kicked them when they were down. We expanded NATO.
And in expanding NATO created the issue that allows the authoritarianism that has returned to say it was justified. And I think that it was a blunder of monumental proportions. When I was at Oxford, I spent a lot of time on the origins of the Cold War. And, you know, I read all these documents and I mean, the all of the documents. And it's you know, the Russians were responsible, basically.
You know? Here, it's unfortunate. It's a blunder of vision. And in the best of circumstances, it was bureaucratic inertia in NATO that people had to have a job. In the worst of circumstances, it was a self fulfilling prophecy with certain people in the Clinton administration who who were irredentist, East European types, who believe Russia will forever be the enemy, and therefore, we gotta protect against the time where they might once again be aggressive, who thereby creating a self fulfilling prophecy.
So what do you do with it now? Still have a still talk. But if we had done that and if we'd really done a strategic partnership, talking about common threats over the long term and what we can do together because we knew ultimately Russia would be back I mean, they did have oil even then. You know, imagine how Iran would be different today. Imagine how Central Asia would be different.
You know? So you've got me at a kind of moment where my feelings about the Russian thing are extremely sad because I I think that we've created a problem that could have been easily avoided, and we we've lost a partner that could have been enormously important over the long term. And in particular, particular, you know, with regard to the issues that most threaten us today.
reSee.it AI Summary
In Kyiv in 2013, I recall John McCain on CNN admitting the U.S. delegation was there to orchestrate a regime change in Ukraine, flaunting it with Victoria Nuland while actively manipulating Yanukovych’s overthrow—no subtlety, just brazen intervention.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Here’s John McCain in Kyiv in 2013, openly admitting on CNN that the US delegation was there to "orchestrate" a regime change in Ukraine. He flaunted it, with Victoria Nuland at his side, actively manipulating the overthrow of the democratically elected President Yanukovych. No subtlety. No pretense. Just raw, brazen intervention.
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Hopefully, what we're trying to do is bring about a peaceful transition here that would stop the violence, would give the Ukrainian people, what they unfortunately have not with different revolutions that have taken place, a real legitimate society. This is a grassroots revolution here. It's been peaceful except for when the government tried to crack down on them, and the government hasn't done that since. Well, I don't think that we would be taking on Russia. I am very pleased with secretary Kerry's statement, our deputy secretary Victoria Newland who was here. We're not talking about military action. We're not talking about blockades. We are talking about the possibility of sanctions if they continue to brutally repress their people. That that would require some action on our part just because that's what The United States Of America is all about."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Joining me now, senator John McCain, who I know senator, you have just addressed the crowd of protesters there yourself in in Kiev. What what is it you you're trying to do here?
Speaker 1: Hopefully, what we're trying to do is bring about a peaceful transition here that, would stop the violence, would give the Ukrainian people, what they unfortunately have not with different revolutions that have taken place, a real legitimate society. This is a grassroots revolution here. It's been peaceful except for when the government tried to crack down on them, and the government hasn't done that since. But I'm praising their their ability and their desire to demonstrate peacefully for change that I think they deserve.
Speaker 0: Let me ask you this about The US role. I know that you have wanted the administration, perhaps to consider sanctions, something to help boost, the anti government protesters. Question to you is while we're trying to work on so many things with the Russians, for instance, with Iran and in Syria. Is this really a good time for The US to be taking on Russia?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think that we would be taking on Russia. And by the way, I am very pleased with secretary Kerry's statement, our deputy secretary Victoria Newland who was here. Look, these people love The United States Of America. They love freedom. And I don't think you could view this as anything but our traditional support for people who want free and democratic society.
We're not talking about military action. We're not talking about blockades. We are talking about the possibility of sanctions if they continue to brutally repress their people. That that would require some action on our part just because that's what The United States Of America is all about.
@ricwe123 - Richard
So here we have Bibi Netanyahu having a meeting with US influencers. They are being paid by Israel, to coordinate a campaign to manipulate evangelicals into backing Israel.... https://t.co/yx0ChJWmP3
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: 'you and the Likud party are cut from the same ideological cloth as Trump and the GOP in America.' 'Evangelicals, from all my research, evangelicals are the reason that Israel has been supported in public sphere outside of just Jews.' 'what's another game plan if we lose evangelical support for the state of Israel.' 'What's our backup plan to be strong, like, outside of the diaspora?' Speaker 1: 'Christian influencers.' 'The woke reich.' 'We have to fight back.' 'the weapons change over time. You can't fight today with the swords.' 'the most important ones are the social media.' 'the most important purchase that is going on right now is class Followers.' 'Five followers.' 'Followers. TikTok. Number one.' 'X. X. That's Successful. Good.' 'We have to talk to Elon. He's not an enemy. He's a friend.' 'Are we gonna succeed with everyone? No. Will there be a strong counterpoint? Yes.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So something I would like to raise, which was actually my first published paper, was how you and the Likud party are cut from the same ideological cloth as Trump and the GOP in America. And so specifically with Charlie Kirk's assassination, who was a big mentor of mine, he's my first mentor in the space. Evangelicals, from all my research, evangelicals are the reason that Israel has been supported in public sphere outside of just Jews. So with Charlie's assassination and with the kind of trajectory that we see with, like, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, I guess I'm curious about what's another game plan if we lose evangelical support for the state of Israel. What's our backup plan to be strong, like, outside of the diaspora?
Speaker 1: Christian influencers. Okay. You said you talked about the woke right, and you said, I call it the woke reich. That's a brilliant I don't know what is. The woke reich because these people, you know, they're not any different from the woke left.
I mean, they're they're insane. They're the least. But they're actually meeting on some of the things. And what we have to do is we have to secure that part of our the base of our support in The United States. That is being challenged systematically.
A lot of this is done with money. Money of NGOs, fast. Money of governments, faster. Okay? We have to fight back.
How do we fight back? Our influencers. I think you should also talk to them if you have a chance to that that community. They're very important. And secondly, we're gonna have to use the tools of battle.
You know, the the weapons change over time. You can't fight today with the swords. That doesn't work very well. Okay? And you can't fight with the fight with cavalry.
That doesn't work very well. And you have these new things, you know, like drones, things like that. I won't get into that. But we have to fight with the weapons that apply to the battlefields in which we're engaged. And the most important ones are the social media.
And the most important purchase that is going on right now is class Followers.
Speaker 0: Five followers.
Speaker 1: Followers. TikTok. Number one. Number one. And I hope it goes through because it's it can be consequential.
Mhmm. And the other one what's the other one that's most important? X. Mhmm. X.
X. X. That's Successful. Good. And, you know, so we have to talk to Elon.
He's not an enemy. He's a friend. We should talk to him. Now if we can get those two things, we get a lot, and I could go on on other things, but that's not the point right now. We have to fight the fight.
Okay? To take give direction to the Jewish people and give direction to our non Jewish friends or those who could be our Jewish, our friends. Are we gonna succeed with everyone? No. Will there be a strong counterpoint?
Yes.
reSee.it AI Summary
I notice that Western mainstream media often describes the Ukraine conflict as "unprovoked." However, after watching a video of Chrystia Freeland praising George Soros's foundation for its influence in Eastern Europe since the 1980s, I can't help but question if similar tactics were used in Moldova too.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Western mainstream media constantly portrays the conflict in Ukraine as "unprovoked" But then i watch this video, whereby Canada’s former Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland is openly praising George Soros’s foundation, boasting about its activities across Eastern Europe since the 1980s and its success in "brainwashing" Ukrainians. Now I wonder, where the same tactics also used in Moldova? 🤔
Video Transcript AI Summary
I set up the foundation in Ukraine in 1990, which is two years before the independence of Ukraine, as an offshoot of the foundation in Russia. There was a “set up cultural initiative Initiative Foundation in in The Soviet Union set in 1987,” and we've built this branch in Ukraine in 1990. The foundation did, gave a lot of scholarships and supported civil society, and “The maturity of civil society twenty five years later is to a large extent, the work of the foundation.” “The twenty five years later, they were leaders.” Not all Europeans agree: “the leader of your own homeland, Hungary, has described Putin as a model as a role model” and “Marielle Le Pen having close contacts with Putin.” “I was very much involved in the collapse of the Soviet system. That was my debut as a what I call myself a political philanthropist.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is that was that George civil society in action? You've been working on helping to build civil society, trying to build it, often frustrated, in the former Soviet Union, in the Soviet Union. I know you started I first met you in Ukraine in 1990 when you began those efforts. There were many years, I think, when it seemed it was all useless. Does it say something to you, teach you something about open society, civil society building?
Speaker 1: Well, yes. Because basically, in many ways, I set up the foundation in Ukraine in 1990, which is two years before the independence of Ukraine. That was part it it was an offshoot of the foundation in Russia. You know, there's a set up cultural initiative Initiative Foundation in in in in The Soviet Union set in 1987, and then we've built this branch in in Ukraine in 1990. And and the foundation one of the the things that the foundation did, gave a lot of scholarships and and and supported civil society.
And the maturity of civil society twenty five years later is to a large extent, the work of the foundation.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I will just offer my own personal testimony here. It's actually amazing in Ukraine. The new Ukrainian government, the new Ukrainian leadership, everyone who I know in that group has been touched somehow society and by Jordan, like literally. Either people personally got a scholarship or someone, you know, their wife got a scholarship.
It it's a really remarkable thing.
Speaker 1: Well, this is a a a for me, quite an experience to see this and I I didn't realize actually how much how big an effect it has had over a twenty five year period because those were students. The twenty five years later, they were leaders.
Speaker 0: So, George, the way you describe Ukraine, and you know that's where my own sympathies lie also, is incredibly appealing. It maybe is another one of these fantastical objects. But not all Europeans agree with us. No. The leader of your own homeland, Hungary, has described Putin as a model as a role model.
We have political leaders across Europe. We have the Greeks right now making trips to Moscow. We have in France, Marielle Le Pen having close contacts with Putin. What what how do you explain this influence, this appeal that Putin has in Europe?
Speaker 1: Well, I think I can take a political a historical perspective because I was very much involved in the collapse of the Soviet system. That was my debut as a what I call myself a political philanthropist.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Oh look, here we have Al Jolani, once busy chopping heads, now cosplaying as Syria’s president, standing at the UN podium. If this isn’t proof the UN has rotted into a traveling freakshow of clowns, nothing is....... https://t.co/XBEUscPI3X
Video Transcript AI Summary
Let me affirm. The suffering Syria endured, we wish upon no one. We are among the peoples most deeply aware of the horrors of war and destruction. For this reason, we stand firmly with the people of Gaza.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me affirm. The suffering Syria endured, we wish upon no one. We are among the peoples most deeply aware of the horrors of war and destruction. For this reason, we stand firmly with the people of Gaza.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Remember that moment when Netanyahu visited the US Congress in 2002, practically barking orders for an invasion of Iraq, peddling blatant lies that led to a catastrophic war? https://t.co/RKD3WI9F5K
@ricwe123 - Richard
Do you remember the interview shown at the UN Security Council meeting, where French journalist Adrien Bocquet exposed how Ukraine staged the Bucha massacre? Of course you don’t,because the Western mainstream media carefully buries the truth to protect its fabricated narrative. https://t.co/73kn5bB8h9
Video Transcript AI Summary
В начале апреля украинская армия вошла в Бучу, сопровождаемая бойцом Азова. По рассказчику, они прибыли без паспортного контроля благодаря этому агенту. Она заметила трупы в центре города и увидела, как из небольших машин достают другие трупы, которых военные и гражданские раскладывают рядом на дороге. Журналисты ждут, пока трупы разложат, и после этого фотографируют. Автор считает, что это постановка ради наиболее впечатляющих кадров.
In the start of April, the Ukrainian army entered Bucha, accompanied by a fighter from Azov. The narrator says they arrived without passport checks thanks to this agent. She noticed corpses in the city center and saw how other corpses were pulled from small cars, laid next to those already on the road by soldiers and civilians. Journalists waited until the bodies were laid out, and after that photographed. The author believes this was a staging to produce the most impressive photographs.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: В первые дни апреля украинская армия пришла в Бучу. В нашей машине нас сопровождал боец Азова. Мы приехали в Бучу абсолютно без всякого контроля паспортов, благодаря этому агенту. И в первую очередь я заметила трупы, которые лежали в центре города, в центре Бучи. И в этот момент я замечаю, как из небольших машин достают другие трупы, эти трупы достают военные и гражданские, и раскладывают их рядом с другими трупами на дороге.
В этот момент журналисты ждут, пока разложат трупы, и как только трупы разложены, они начинают фотографировать. И я сразу понял, что они сделали эту постановку для того, чтобы сделать наиболее впечатляющие фотографии
reSee.it AI Summary
I reflect on the Bucharest Summit in 2008, where George W. Bush praised Ukraine for its support of NATO's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. He then announced his full support for Ukraine joining NATO, claiming it was about advancing security and freedom. However, I see this as a moment that set off a chain of destruction, leading to a generation of Ukrainians being caught in a conflict fueled by deception and manipulation from the West.
@ricwe123 - Richard
The moment Ukraine’s fate was doomed. Bucharest Summit,2008, George W. Bush grinning as he praises Ukraine for backing NATO’s bloody adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then he drops the bomb: full-throated support for Ukraine joining NATO. "Helping advance security and freedom," he says, completely blind to the chaos he’s unleashing. Let's be clear, this dumb motherfucker triggered a chain of destruction that condemned a generation of brainwashed Ukrainians to die for a carefully fabricated bullshit lie, manufactured and sold by Western deception.
Video Transcript AI Summary
So we spent a lot of time talking about NATO. First, I do wanna remind people that Ukraine and the NATO alliance have built a strong partnership. Ukraine is the only non NATO nation supporting every NATO mission. In Afghanistan and Iraq, Ukrainian troops are helping to support young democracies. In Kosovo, Ukrainians are help keep the peace.
Ukraine now seeks to deepen its cooperation with the NATO alliance through a membership action plan. Your nation has made a bold decision, and The United States strongly supports your request. In Bucharest this week, I will continue to make America's position clear. We support MAP for Ukraine and Georgia. Helping Ukraine move toward NATO membership is in the interest of every member in the alliance and will help advance security and freedom in this region and around the world.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So we spent a lot of time talking about NATO. First, I do wanna remind people that Ukraine and the NATO alliance have built a strong partnership. Ukraine is the only non NATO nation supporting every NATO mission. In Afghanistan and Iraq, Ukrainian troops are helping to support young democracies. In Kosovo, Ukrainians are help keep the peace.
Ukraine now seeks to deepen its cooperation with the NATO alliance through a membership action plan. Your nation has made a bold decision, and The United States strongly supports your request. In Bucharest this week, I will continue to make America's position clear. We support MAP for Ukraine and Georgia. Helping Ukraine move toward NATO membership is in the interest of every member in the alliance and will help advance security and freedom in this region and around the world.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Let’s cut this crap,Israel doesn’t pull off a strike like this without Washington’s green light. Trump clearly signed off on the attack on Doha. This whole story cooked up by the US President is nothing but fabricated garbage. Completely absurd. https://t.co/wD2M89gnz3
reSee.it AI Summary
The Western media avoids discussing the harsh truth about NATO's expansion. In 2008, Senator Bill Bradley criticized it as a major mistake, claiming it broke promises to Gorbachev. He warned it would lead to ongoing conflict with Russia, and now we’re facing the consequences of that betrayal.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Here's the brutal reality the Western media dodges like cowards. In 2008, US Senator Bill Bradley slammed NATO’s expansion as a monumental blunder, admitting it betrayed explicit promises to Gorbachev. He predicted it would blow up in our faces, chaining us to endless conflict with Russia. And surprise, here we are, drowning in the fallout of that betrayal.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker is saddened about Russia, arguing the fundamental blunder was the expansion of NATO in the mid eighties and early nineties. He cites the Germany reunification talks: Gorbachev and Jim Baker discussed 'no NATO troops in what was in East Germany' and 'NATO if you agree to reunification of Germany in NATO, no expand NATO will not expand one inch further east.' The first Bush administration kept its promise; Russians liked that. Clinton expanded NATO in his first term. He cites Strobe Talbot's article on why expand NATO. A Russian politician asked, 'Russians might not be able to understand puts and calls, but they certainly understand tanks.' He says expanding NATO 'kicked them when they were down' and was a 'blunder of monumental proportions.' He argues a 'strategic partnership' on 'common threats over the long term' could have worked; 'Russia would be back.' We've lost a partner that could have been enormously important over the long term.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On Russia, this is a this is a terribly sad, thing for me because I spent a lot of time in the eighties and early nineties on Russia. I'd go there every year. I'd spend weeks there. I traveled all over. I got to know most of the people who ran the government and who are now there.
And I think that right now, we're confronted with something that potentially could have been avoided. And the fundamental blunder that The United States made in the mid eighties, late late eighties, early nineties was the expansion of NATO. I mean, here we'd won the Cold War. We'd won the Cold War. And you then had people saying, well, now what are we gonna do with NATO?
Oh, well, don't I know. It's a bureaucracy. It works. What are we gonna do with it? And so then the idea of expanding NATO.
And the problem with it is the is this. During the negotiation for the reunification of Germany, Gorbachev and Jim Baker Jim Baker says to Gorbachev, you know, in the treaty, it says, you know, no NATO troops in what was in East Germany. In the discussions and I had this conversation with Gorbachev last summer. He told me very directly, conversation with Jim Baker. Question was, Baker saying, NATO if you agree to reunification of Germany in NATO, no expand NATO will not expand one inch further east, which is what I went to see Gorbachev to confirm because I care so much about this.
Is this true? Now the interpretation on the American side, Scowcroft says, well, he misinterpreted. Baker, I can't haven't quite penned down. But Gorbachev says very specifically, he he said if you expand one inch further if you allow reunification, Germany and NATO, NATO will not expand one inch further east. And then Gorbachev told me, coal told him the same thing, which was new information.
Right? So the first Bush keeps keeps his promise. Assume it's a promise. We're talking about partnership for peace and, you know, Russians kinda like that idea. And then Clinton comes in.
What's the early thing he does in his first term? Expands NATO. Why expand NATO? And I read the and I've been rereading because I've been thinking of writing something about this. Strobe Talbot's article in Foreign Affairs about why expand NATO.
When you read it and you say, that's a reason? You know? And last summer, again, I'm talking to a number of people that I've known for many years. Two guys who ran for president in Russia in 1996 and February. And, you know, one of them says to me, I'm out campaigning in the Urals.
Somebody comes up to me and says, this is '96. Why why are the Americans expanding NATO? Isn't that a military alliance? And they said, well, yeah, but it's it's a military alliance. And the guy said the politician said, Russians might not be able to understand puts and calls, but they certainly understand tanks.
Right? And think of it this way, what would any politics one zero one, somebody who's a friend, supporter, goes bankrupt? What do you do? You call them up on the phone and say, you know, Joe, it's tough. I know you things are gonna be okay.
You're gonna be back. You know, you show them some respect. And what did we do? We kicked them when they were down. We expanded NATO.
And in expanding NATO created the issue that allows the authoritarianism that has returned to say it was justified. And I think that it was a blunder of monumental proportions. When I was at Oxford, I spent a lot of time on the origins of the Cold War. And, you know, I read all these documents and I mean, the all of the documents. And it's you know, the Russians were responsible, basically.
You know? Here, it's unfortunate. It's a blunder of vision. And in the best of circumstances, it was bureaucratic inertia in NATO that people had to have a job. In the worst of circumstances, it was a self fulfilling prophecy with certain people in the Clinton administration who who were irredentist, East European types, who believe Russia will forever be the enemy, and therefore, we gotta protect against the time where they might once again be aggressive, who thereby creating a self fulfilling prophecy.
So what do you do with it now? Still have a still talk. But if we had done that and if we'd really done a strategic partnership, talking about common threats over the long term and what we can do together because we knew ultimately Russia would be back I mean, they did have oil even then. You know, imagine how Iran would be different today. Imagine how Central Asia would be different.
You know? So you've got me at a kind of moment where my feelings about the Russian thing are extremely sad because I I think that we've created a problem that could have been easily avoided, and we we've lost a partner that could have been enormously important over the long term. And in particular, particular, you know, with regard to the issues that most threaten us today.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Did you know USAID paid Time magazine $4 million to name Volodymyr Zelensky "Person of the Year"? Now you do...... https://t.co/H7HfWYoIWa
Video Transcript AI Summary
Since Trump administration started its work, Department of Government Efficiency has discovered huge amounts of money wasted by the government. In 2022, USAID paid Time Magazine for million dollars for them to award Ukrainian President Zelenskyy the title of the person of the year. In 2024, Politico newspaper received over $8,000,000 from USAID. According to Wikileaks, USAID was funding over 6,200 journalists across seven zero seven media outlets and two seventy nine media NGOs. Trump claimed that billions of dollars were spent by the USAID and other government agencies on supporting Democrats and their agenda. Trump administration believes that such waste of money is detrimental to The US and that USAID needs to be reformed or shut down entirely.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Since Trump administration started its work, Department of Government Efficiency has discovered huge amounts of money wasted by the government. In 2022, USAID paid Time Magazine for million dollars for them to award Ukrainian President Zelenskyy the title of the person of the year. In 2024, Politico newspaper received over $8,000,000 from USAID. According to Wikileaks, USAID was funding over 6,200 journalists across seven zero seven media outlets and two seventy nine media NGOs. Trump claimed that billions of dollars were spent by the USAID and other government agencies on supporting Democrats and their agenda.
Trump administration believes that such waste of money is detrimental to The US and that USAID needs to be reformed or shut down entirely.
@ricwe123 - Richard
So now we know USAID was funding Boko Haram, a group responsible for terror attacks, on especially Christians, in Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger and Chad. (US Congressman Scott Perry) https://t.co/ZQfyowuQNw
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker says USAID funding amounts to terrorism. He notes $697,000,000 annually, plus shipments of cash funds Madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorazan, terrorist training camps. If you think that the program under operation enduring Sentinel entitled Women's Scholarship Endowment ($60,000,000 annually) or the Young Women Lead ($5,000,000 annually) is going to women— inspector general's report says the Taliban does not allow women to speak in public. He asserts Americans are told this funds women, but 'You are funding terrorism, and it's coming through USAID.' He adds USAID spent $8,840,000,000 in the last twenty years on Pakistan's education related program, including $136,000,000 to build 120 schools with zero evidence any were built; inspector general can't get in to see them. They spent $20,000,000 to create educational television programs for children unable to attend the school; 'You paid for it. Somebody else got the money. You are paying for terrorism.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Who gets some of that money? Does that name ring a bell to anybody in the room? Because your money your money, $697,000,000 annually, plus the shipments of cash funds Madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorazan, terrorist training camps. That's what it's funding. If you think that the that the the program under operation enduring Sentinel entitled Women's Scholarship Endowment which receives $60,000,000 annually or the young women lead which gets about $5,000,000 annually is going to women who by the way, if you read the inspector general's report has tell is telling you that the Taliban does not allow women to speak in public.
Yet somehow, you're believing and American people are supposed to believe that this money is going for the betterment of the women in Afghanistan. It is not. You are funding terrorism, and it's coming through USAID. And it's not just Afghanistan because Pakistan's right next door. USAID spent $8,840,000,000 in the last year the last twenty years on Pakistan's education related program.
It includes a $136,000,000 to build a 120 schools of which there is zero evidence that any of them were built. Why would there be any evidence? The inspector general can't get in to see them. But you know what? We doubled down and spent $20,000,000 from USAID to create educational television programs for children unable to attend the physical school.
Yeah. They can't attend it because it doesn't exist. You paid for it. Somebody else got the money. You are paying for terrorism.
This has got to end. I yield, mister chairman.
reSee.it AI Summary
I find it hard to understand how anyone can still call the conflict "unprovoked." Back in February 2014, Senator Chris Murphy, alongside Senator John McCain in Maidan Square, acknowledged that the US was behind the coup that removed President Yanukovych, supported by sanctions and threats.
@ricwe123 - Richard
For anyone still deluded enough to call the conflict "unprovoked," back in February 2014, Senator Chris Murphy, cozying up with Senator John McCain in Maidan Square, admitted that the US orchestrated the 2014 coup that toppled Ukrainian President Yanukovych. This together with strong-arming it with sanctions and threats.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I think it was our role, sanctions and threats of sanctions that forced, in part, Yanukovych from office. The United States should support this new government and pursue an EU-oriented path. "The clear position of The United States has in part been what has helped lead to this change in regimes." We are in the middle of negotiating a new trade agreement with Europe, and we do 40% of our trade in Connecticut with Europe. Yanukovych "lost his legitimacy to govern when he used force to try to break up these protests." McCain and I went to defend human rights as protests grew. Foreign ministers joined the square to support protesters, while the movement largely rejects radical and prejudicial ideas; "it will be part of our job ... to make sure that those kind of more radical elements don't have a seat at the middle of the table."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think it was our role, sanctions and threats of sanctions that forced, in part, Yanukovych from office. Now, the question is what can we do to support this new government? There's gonna be a lot of talk about an assistance package. With respect to Ukraine, we have not sat on the sidelines. We have been very much involved.
Members of the senate who have been there, members of the state department who have been on the square, the administration the Obama administration passed sanctions. The Senate was prepared to pass its own set of sanctions. And as I said, I really think that the clear position of The United States has in part been what has helped lead to this change in regimes. So I know that there is merit in the claim that The United States sort of has these principles and then we selectively apply them. We get involved in certain places and then we don't get involved in other places.
But I think if ultimately this is a peaceful transition to a new government in Ukraine, it'll be The United States on the streets of Ukraine who will be seen as a great friend in helping make that transition happen. This is really about supporting one of the biggest, most important countries in the Eurasian region, be able to determine for themselves what their future is. And it looks to people like this is The United States and Russia once again fighting, maybe not in military terms, but on economic terms in a country that we both care about. But really, ultimately, I think this is about us supporting the wishes of Ukraine. And, you know, the there is a US interest, here.
We are in the middle of negotiating a new trade agreement with Europe. To my state, it's enormously important. We do 40% of our trade in Connecticut with Europe. If Ukraine is part of the European Union, and thus is part of this new trade agreement with The United States, that could result in billions of dollars in new economic opportunities for The US. So we do have an economic interest in the Ukraine being part of the European Union, and we shouldn't be shy about making clear that interest.
Speaker 1: Isn't it true that Unikovich was elected for the first time in 2010 for one five year term, that elections were scheduled for 02/2015? The second point is, why is it okay for foreign ministers from other countries to show up during protest movements? Let's say in Ukraine, like the foreign ministers of Poland and Germany, and support the protesters against the current government there. Wouldn't it be something similar to the foreign ministers of, let's say, Mexico and Canada showing up during the Occupy Wall Street movement and saying, yes, we agree that your government is corrupt. And the third point is, why isn't the West and America talking about the fact that a large or significant portion of the Ukrainian opposition right now is made up of far right politicians, including from the the party Slaborda, which openly is fascist and xenophobic.
And they said that they don't wanna join the EU because they consider the EU to be a bunch of gays and Jews, just as well as they say that they don't don't wanna join the imperialist Moscow regime.
Speaker 0: Let me me take take all those very quickly one at a time. You're right. Yanukovych was elected, and I mentioned this before. I understand the difficult position here, which is that Yanukovych was elected and we are not in the business of encouraging rebellions and revolutions on the streets against elected leaders because we ultimately think that elections, as you mentioned, are the place in which you should settle your differences. The issue here is that Yanukovych lost his legitimacy to govern when he used force to try to break up these protests.
And The United States didn't go on to that square in any meaningful way, until, the president tried to break up the peaceful protests. That's why senator McCain and I went. And we certainly got a lot of grief from people asking why two US senators are going to the square to support a protest movement against an elected government. We did that because we think that there were human rights and civil rights that were violated there, and we've always stood up for that, for that concept. And again, I think that answers your second question as to why you had foreign ministers and foreign leaders who were on that square.
It was because we're standing up for the idea that people should be able to lodge protests against their government. You are right that there is an element of the opposition that has some real radical ideas, and there is an element of anti Semitism, that was present on that square. I will tell you from having been there, if there were 500,000 people there, maybe a couple thousand of them represented that viewpoint. And so by and large, this movement completely rejects those radical and prejudicial ideas. And I have confidence that this new government is going to be inclusive and going to be tolerant.
And it will be part of our job, I think, as members of the Foreign Relations Committee to make sure that those kind of more radical elements don't have a seat at the middle of the table as the coalition government goes
reSee.it AI Summary
I often hear western mainstream media describe this conflict as "unprovoked." However, I came across a video from February 2014 showing John McCain at Maidan Square, alongside Geoffrey Pyatt and Victoria Nuland, seemingly celebrating the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected President Yanukovych.
@ricwe123 - Richard
All the time western mainstream media is telling us how this conflict is somehow "unprovoked" But then i see this video from February 2014, Maidan Square, John McCain filming the protests, standing alongside Geoffrey Pyatt, US ambassador to Ukraine, with Victoria Nuland standing behind him. All enjoying their role in overthrowing the democratically elected Ukrainian President Yanukovych.
reSee.it AI Summary
On April 14, 2014, I signed a decree labeling the Donbass population as "terrorists" and initiated the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO). This decision led to significant civilian casualties, mass displacement, and heightened ethnic and political tensions in the region. At the same time, the IMF approved a $17 billion bailout for my government, despite the ongoing conflict and human rights issues. This support, managed by Nikolay Gueorguiev, aligned the IMF with my administration during a period marked by military actions that resulted in thousands of deaths.
@ricwe123 - Richard
On April 14, 2014, Ukraine’s acting president, Alexander Turchynov, signed a decree designating the population of Donbass as "terrorists" and launched the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO). This decision initiated a government-led campaign that caused severe civilian casualties, mass displacement, and deepened the ethnic and political divide in the region. Concurrently, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under the leadership of Christine Lagarde, approved a $17 billion bailout for Ukrainian government despite the escalating conflict and human rights concerns. This program, managed on the ground by IMF mission head Nikolay Gueorguiev, effectively aligned the IMF with Turchynov’s administration, providing substantial financial and political support during its contentious military actions in Donbass, killing thousands. (Video shows Ukrainian civilians attempting to block tanks from launching the operation in eastern Ukraine)
Video Transcript AI Summary
У розмові йдеться про приїзд на Донбас: "Та чому ми приїхали на Донбас?" Запитують про наявність командира: "одні люди, є ваш командир?" Розмова зводиться до дії колони: "На кого немає!" "На кого ми перекрили дорогу." Просять відступити: "Вас попрошу, будь ласка, дорога чи інші дівчини, жінки." Кажуть: "Бо у нас занесло. Колона, будьте в свої стилі!" "Я їх пройшов, вони були дорогою." Розмова завершується словом "прости".
The dialogue discusses arriving in Donbas: "Та чому ми приїхали на Донбас?" It asks about a commander: "одні люди, є ваш командир?" The conversation centers on the column's actions: "На кого немає!" "На кого ми перекрили дорогу." They request others to move: "Вас попрошу, будь ласка, дорога чи інші дівчини, жінки." They say: "Бо у нас занесло. Колона, будьте в свої стилі!" "Я їх пройшов, вони були дорогою." The exchange ends with "прости."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Зачекайте! Присі Возниці морози Україні.
Speaker 1: Та чому ми приїхали на Донбас?
Speaker 2: Одні люди, є ваш командир?
Speaker 0: Ой, пішов за нас, завели, ми гробла. Начальник гаї голова. Началь гає і гаї роводи. Ровати, он взяв туди. Барушпільник голова.
Ба-во, Нема діти як намір. Моя онук Володимир
Speaker 3: немає! На кого немає! На кого немає!
Speaker 0: На кого немає! На кого немає!
Speaker 3: На кого немає!
Speaker 0: На кого немає! На кого ми перекрили дорогу. Та ви сюда даєте! Ви стояли вас бачити! Я їх пройшов, вони були дорогою.
Я вчора дарую. Ваші дії.
Speaker 1: Чоловіків.
Speaker 0: Вас попрошу, будь ласка, дорога чи інші дівчини, жінки, жінки. Відкудались? Ти зараз, з 1952 року, нормально, розвертається. Бо у нас занесло. Колона, будьте в свої стилі!
Ампетям, з іншою оду, когда з полігоном.
Speaker 3: Як
Speaker 0: прости,
@ricwe123 - Richard
All the time Western mainstream media keeps telling us that the war in Ukraine was somehow "unprovoked" But then i listen to this leaked phone call between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt, and realize I was just listening to a carefully fabricated lie...... https://t.co/xqto4UFKzH
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss Klitschko piece as complicated electron, especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister. 'I don't think cleats should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's a good idea.' They debate keeping moderate Democrats together, with Yadze or Yatzenyuk as governing figure; 'He's the guy you know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tani Book on the outside.' 'Klitschko going in, he's gonna be at that level working for Yatzenyuk.' They consider reaching out to Klitschko directly to move fast and manage personality among the three, and to set up a 'three plus one conversation or three plus two with you.' Jeff Feltman mentions Robert Seri and that Seri could come in Monday or Tuesday with Ban Ki Moon's agreement; 'fuck the EU' as aim. They worry Russians will torpedo; plan outreach to Yanukovych; Biden's involvement: 'Biden's willing.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What do you think?
Speaker 1: I think we're in play. The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here, especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister. And and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now. So we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call we wanna set up, is exactly the one you made to to Yat.
And I I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad he said what he said in response.
Speaker 0: Good. So I don't think cleats should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's a good idea.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I I guess you think what in terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we wanna keep the moderate Democrats together. The problem is gonna be Tony Book and his guys. And, you know, I'm sure that's part of what Yanukovich is calculating on all of this.
I kinda
Speaker 0: I just I think Yadze is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's he's the guy you know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tani Book on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week. You know? I I I just think Klitsch going in, he's gonna be at that level working for Yatzenyuk.
It's just not gonna work.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. I think that's I think that's right. Okay. Good.
Well, do you want us to try to set up a call with him as the next step?
Speaker 0: My understanding from that call, but you tell me, was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yatz was gonna offer in that context a three way you know, the three plus one conversation or three plus two with you. Is that not how you understood it?
Speaker 1: No. I think I mean, that's what he proposed. But I think just knowing the dynamic that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's gonna take a while to show up for whatever meeting they've got. He's probably talking to his guys at this point. So I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three, and it and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it behind it before they all sit down and he, he explains why he doesn't like it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after?
Speaker 1: Okay. Will do. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Okay. I've now written oh, one more wrinkle for you, Jeff.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Can't remember if I told you this or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy, Robert Seri. Did I write you that this morning?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I saw that.
Speaker 0: He's now gotten both Seri and Ban Ki Moon to agree that Seri could come in Monday or Tuesday.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it and, you know, fuck the EU.
Speaker 1: No. Exactly. And I think we've gotta do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does if it does start to gain altitude, the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And, again, the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych that. But in the meantime, there's a party of regions faction meeting going on right now, and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point.
But, anyway, we could we could land jelly set up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on let me work on Klitschko. And if you can just keep I I think we wanna try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. And then the other the other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych, but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Speaker 0: So on that piece, Jeff, when I wrote the note, Sullivan's come back to me, VFR, saying you need Biden. And I said probably tomorrow for an attaboy and get the deets to stick. So Biden's willing.
Speaker 1: Okay. Great. Thanks.
reSee.it AI Summary
I often hear western mainstream media describe the Ukraine conflict as "unprovoked." However, I came across a video of Canada's former Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland praising George Soros's foundation for its influence in Eastern Europe since the 1980s, even claiming it "brainwashed" Ukrainians.
@ricwe123 - Richard
All the time western mainstream media is telling us how the conflict in Ukraine is "unprovoked" But then i see this video, whereby Canada’s former Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland openly glorifies George Soros’s foundation, boasting about its operations across Eastern Europe since the 1980s and its success in "brainwashing" Ukrainians.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Open Society's Ukraine foundation was established in 1990 as an offshoot of the foundation in Russia, part of a Soviet-era cultural initiative started in 1987. It provided scholarships and supported civil society, and, twenty-five years later, its work contributed significantly to the maturity of civil society. The speaker notes that many in Ukraine's leadership have been touched by Open Society and Jordan, with people receiving scholarships themselves or through spouses. He reflects that the impact over a 25-year period is evident: those students became leaders. The conversation also notes wide European admiration for Putin in some quarters—Hungary's leader calling Putin a model, Greeks visiting Moscow, Le Pen in France with close contacts to Putin—and asks how to explain Putin's appeal in Europe. The reply emphasizes a historical perspective from someone involved in the collapse of the Soviet system, calling himself a political philanthropist.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is that was that George civil society in action? You've been working on helping to build civil society, trying to build it, often frustrated, in the former Soviet Union, in the Soviet Union. I know you started I first met you in Ukraine in 1990 when you began those efforts. There were many years, I think, when it seemed it was all useless. Does it say something to you, teach you something about open society, civil society building?
Speaker 1: Yes. Because basically, in many ways, I I set up the foundation in Ukraine in 1990, which is two years before the independence of Ukraine. That was part it it was an offshoot of the foundation in Russia. You know, it was a a cultural initiative foundation in in in in Soviet Union in 1987. And then we've built this branch in in Ukraine in 1990.
And the foundation one of the the things that the foundation did, gave a lot of scholarships and and and supported civil society. And the maturity of civil society twenty five years later is to a large extent the work of the foundation.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I will just offer my personal testimony here. It's actually amazing in Ukraine. The new Ukrainian government, the new Ukrainian leadership, everyone who I know in that group has been touched somehow by Open Society and by Jordan like literally, either people personally got a scholarship or someone, you know, their wife got a scholarship. It it's a really remarkable thing.
Speaker 1: Well, this is a a a for me, quite an experience to see this and I I didn't realize actually how much how big an effect it has had over a twenty five year period because those were students. The twenty five years later, they were leaders.
Speaker 0: So, George, the way you described Ukraine, and you know that's where my own sympathies lie also, is incredibly appealing. It maybe is another one of these fantastical objects. But not all Europeans agree with us. The leader of your own homeland, Hungary, has described Putin as a model as a role model. We have political leaders across Europe.
We have the Greeks right now making trips to Moscow. We have in France, Marielle Le Pen having close contacts with Putin. What what how do you explain this influence, this appeal that Putin has in Europe?
Speaker 1: Well, I think I can take a political a a historical perspective because I was very much involved in the collapse of the Soviet system. That was my debut as a what I call myself a political philanthropist.
@ricwe123 - Richard
All the time we are told how the war in Ukraine is somehow "unprovoked" But then i see this video, George Soros admitting his role in orchestrating the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014 Effectively toppling Ukranian president Yanukovych.... https://t.co/SCwyoFJBfe
Video Transcript AI Summary
Interviewer notes Soros funded dissident activities during the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe. Soros responds that he 'set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of, Russia' and that 'the foundation has been, functioning ever since, and it played an important part in events now.' Asked whether Ukraine will assert independence from Russia and orient toward the West (not specifically NATO), he implies challenges ahead, stating 'No. Putin will try to destabilize, Ukraine.' He reiterates the foundation's ongoing role, saying 'the foundation has been, functioning ever since, and it played an important part in events now.' The discussion ties Soros's past funding of dissident activities to his ongoing Ukrainian foundation's role.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: George Soros, pleasure to have you on.
Speaker 1: Same here.
Speaker 0: First on Ukraine. One of the things that many people recognized about you was that you, during the revolutions of nineteen eighty nine, funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in Eastern Europe and Poland, The Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine?
Speaker 1: Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of, Russia. And the foundation has been, functioning ever since, and it played an important part in events now.
Speaker 0: Do you think Ukraine will be able to assert a kind of independence from Russia, and an alignment, with the West? Not but not a specific alignment as a NATO, but a kind of orientation toward the West, or will the Russians always stop them?
Speaker 1: No. Putin will try to destabilize, Ukraine. The foundation has been, functioning ever since, and it played an important part in events now.
@ricwe123 - Richard
So here we have Russian troops, in the Zaporozhye region, riding a captured American M113 armored vehicle, flying both the US and Russian flags..... https://t.co/3HD3q7xdYH
@ricwe123 - Richard
Here we have retired US diplomat, Robert Ford,openly admitting that he and British MI6 helped rebranding Abu Mohammad al-Julani ,the founder of Al-Qaeda in Syria. Like it was some kind of PR campaign. Western officials whitewashing terrorists to suit their agenda..... https://t.co/0Afv08LxYW
Video Transcript AI Summary
Starting in 2023, a British nongovernment organization, which specializes in conflict resolution, invited me to help them bring this guy out of the terrorist world and into regular politics. I was leery at first, imagining an orange jumpsuit with a knife to my throat. After talking to several people who had gone in, and one who had met him, I decided to take the chance. The first time I met him, this guy's name, is known to Gare, was Abdul Qadr Jolani, but his actual name is Ahmed Sharah, which he only revealed to the world after he captured Damascus in the Blitzkrieg of December two thousand twenty four, about five months ago. First time I met him, I sat down next to him, and he said, me neither. He never apologized, never apologized for the terrorist attacks in Iraq or in Syria, although there were many fewer in Syria. Never apologized. But he also said, now I am governing an opposition held area of Northwest Syria, and I am learning that the tactics and the principles that I was following in Iraq do not apply when you actually have to govern 4,000,000 people. So that was in March 2023, just over two years ago. We went back a second time in September.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Starting in 2023, a British nongovernment organization, which specializes in conflict resolution, invited me to help them bring this guy out of the terrorist world and into regular politics. And at first, I have to tell you, I was very leery of going. I sort of had images of me in an orange jumpsuit with a knife to my throat. But after talking to several people who had gone in, and one of whom had met him, I decided to take the chance. And so the first time I met him, this guy's name, is known to Gare, was Abdul Qadr, Jolani, but his actual name is Ahmed Sharah, which he only revealed to the world after he captured Damascus in the Blitzkrieg of December two thousand twenty four, about five months ago.
First time I met him, I sat down next to him, and I'm literally as close as I am to Roy. And I said this is all in Arabic. I said, never in a million years could I imagine that I would be sitting next to you, long beard, thin fatigues. And he looked at me, he speaks very softly. And he said, me neither.
And we went on and actually had a pretty civil con forsation. I I share this because he said something which really piqued my interest. He never apologized, never apologized for the terrorist attacks in Iraq or in Syria, although there were many fewer in Syria. Never apologized. But he also said, you know, now I am governing an opposition held area of Northwest Syria, and I am learning that the tactics and the principles that I was following in Iraq do not apply when you actually have to govern 4,000,000 people.
And they had 2,000,000 residents of that area of Syria and then another 2,000,000 refugees who had come there from other parts of Syria. So they had a population of 4,000,000. He said, I am learning that to govern, you have to make compromises. I was very struck by that. So that was in March 2023, just over two years ago.
We went back a second time in September.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Western leaders used to talk about Putin like he was just another pawn,someone who’d roll over and follow orders. They mistook calculation for weakness and thought he’d play by their rules. Now they’re choking on their arrogance... https://t.co/PNdh89TkWa
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a clip of Victoria Nuland from 2016, revealing the extensive US involvement in Ukraine post-2014 coup. She detailed US advisors in twelve ministries, American-trained police in 18 cities, and significant financial support, challenging the narrative that the war was "unprovoked."
@ricwe123 - Richard
Here’s Victoria Nuland in 2016, openly telling Congress just how far the US had buried its claws into Ukraine after the 2014 coup. No shame, no filter. Twelve Ukranian ministries crawling with US advisors, American-trained cops running operations in 18 cities, the Treasury wiping out 60 Ukrainian banks while keeping depositors happy, and $266 million thrown into training their military. But sure, keep parroting that this war was "unprovoked" 😂😂😂😂
Video Transcript AI Summary
US advisors are working within nearly a dozen Ukrainian ministries and localities to assist with service delivery, fraud elimination, tax collection improvement, and institutional modernization. US assistance has enabled the deployment of newly vetted and trained police officers in 18 Ukrainian cities. US-funded legal aid attorneys have secured two-thirds of all acquittals in Ukrainian courtrooms. Treasury and State Department advisors have aided Ukraine in closing over 60 failed banks and safeguarding depositor assets. Over $266 million has been allocated to the security sector, facilitating the training of 1,200 soldiers and 750 Ukrainian National Guard personnel, as well as providing essential equipment. Training and equipping Ukraine's border guards, military, and coast guard will continue in FY '16.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And US advisers serve in almost a dozen Ukrainian ministries and localities, helping to deliver services, eliminate fraud and abuse, improve tax collection, and modernize Ukrainian institutions. With US help, newly vetted and trained police officers are patrolling the cities the streets of 18 Ukrainian cities. In courtrooms across Ukraine, free legal aid attorneys funded by The US have won two thirds of all the acquittals in the countries. Treasury and State Department advisers have helped Ukraine shutter over 60 failed banks and protected the assets of depositors. And since there can be no reform in Ukraine without security, over $266,000,000 of our support has been in the security sector, training 1,200 soldiers and 750 Ukrainian National Guard personnel, and supplying life saving gear.
In FY '16, we are continuing that training and equipment of more of Ukraine's border guards, military, and coast guard.
reSee.it AI Summary
Gonzalo Lira is dead, and I reject the idea that it was a tragic accident. He revealed troubling connections between a Ukrainian oligarch, Hunter Biden, Zelensky, and the Azov Battalion. His death goes unacknowledged by Washington, as it disrupts their narrative. R.I.P. Gonzalo. Silenced for the truth.
@ricwe123 - Richard
American citizen Gonzalo Lira is dead,and spare us the fairy tales about it being some tragic accident. He exposed the dirty connections between a Ukrainian oligarch, Hunter Biden, Zelensky, and the Nazi-linked Azov Battalion. Now he’s conveniently dead. And Washington? Not a word. Because they never gave a damn about him,or the truth he revealed. It doesn't fit the narrative. R.I.P. Gonzalo. Silenced for speaking out.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Zelensky is described as a manufactured political figure created by Ukrainian Israeli Cypriot oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, who owns One Plus One Media. Kolomoisky financed and produced the TV show "Servant of the People," hiring Zelensky, an actor with no political experience, to play the president. The show was popular and Kolomoisky created a political party with the same name, running Zelensky as its candidate.
Kolomoisky also financed Hunter Biden, paying him $50,000 a month to be on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company. It is claimed that Zelensky and Hunter Biden are both bankrolled by Kolomoisky and have drug addictions.
The speaker suggests the U.S. establishment is "freaking out" over Ukraine because the country has been used as a "private piggy bank," financially exploiting it and contributing to its poverty. The speaker claims Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month, with a possible 10% kickback to his father. The speaker asserts Kolomoisky financed both Zelensky and Biden, and that Westerners are terrified the truth will come out in Ukraine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Zelensky and Hunter Biden have a great deal in common, and you should be aware of it. You see, Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, well, the cokehead of Kyiv because he is a cokehead. The cokehead of Kyiv is actually a manufactured political figure. He was manufactured by a Ukrainian Israeli Cypriot oligarch called Igor Kolomoisky. Now Igor Kolomoyski was the man who owns One Plus One Media here in Ukraine.
And One Plus One Media is the company that financed and produced the TV show Servant of the People. And Servant of the People hired Zelensky, a well known actor in Ukraine, an actor with zero political experience or even any political interest. Well, they hired him to play the role of the president in this show Servant of the People. Now Servant of the People had huge ratings, but a lot of people say that it was really weird the amount of propaganda and PR that was done for the show. It was disproportionate to any other show of any channel.
The amount of PR positive press and all the rest of it, it was really pushed on the people. Some people say it was completely astroturf. Some people who know how to speak Ukrainian and who have watched the show have told me that it's a mildly enjoyable show, but no big deal. But anyway, the show was hugely popular. And it ran from 2015 to 2018 and almost seamlessly, Kolomewski, the oligarch, created a party called Servant of the People, same name as the TV show.
And their candidate was Zelensky, a man with no previous political experience and indeed no previous political interest. And Kolomoisky financed Zelensky to the point that Zelensky today is a billionaire. How many actors do you know are billionaires? I mean, I don't think that Tom Cruise is a billionaire, and he's the most successful actor in the world if he's just an actor. Zelensky is more than just an actor.
Mhmm. He's the finger puppet of Kolomoisky, this oligarch. And do you know who Kolomoisky also financed to the tune of $50,000 a month, plus additional benefits of different sorts? Hunter Biden. Yes.
In 02/2014, Burisma, the Ukrainian oil company gas company, excuse me, hired Hunter Biden to be on its board of directors to the tune of $50,000 a month. Who do you think controls Burisma? Kolomovsky, the same guy who manufactured Zelensky as president of Ukraine. Yeah, I bet you didn't know that. Zelensky and Hunter Biden are spiritual cousins.
They are bankrolled by the same guy. It's funny because both of them have drug addictions, pretty serious ones. Mhmm. Both of them get their money from Kolomovsky, and both of them are intimately involved in Ukraine. But here's the difference, of course.
Zelenskyy doesn't have a dad who's president of The United States, now does he? Why do you think the White House, The United States, is freaking out so badly over Ukraine? Mhmm. In Ukraine, there are all kinds of secrets. In Ukraine, well, see, the more unsavory people in the Washington establishment have used Ukraine as their private piggy bank to the detriment of the Ukrainian people.
They have financially raped Ukraine, stripping it of monies and assets, monies and assets needed by the people of Ukraine. And this is part of the reason that Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Europe, if not the poorest country in Europe, because of the corruption, because of how Westerners have exploited it, Western politicians have exploited it. Hunter Biden, $50,000 a month. And you say to yourself, well, 50,000 isn't that much. Yeah.
But, you know, $50,000 a year is the median household income in The United States. In Ukraine, a much poorer country, $50,000 a year would easily solve the problems of a good four or five families in Ukraine, the financial problems of those four or five families in Ukraine for a year. And Hunter Biden was getting that money per month just for himself. Although, of course, in the Hunter Biden emails, there's talk that seems to be true that the old man would get a 10% kickback of whatever Hunter Biden was getting. Mhmm.
And that was in the, laptop. Oh, yeah. Look it up. You don't have to take my word for it. You don't have to take my word for any of what I'm telling you.
Mhmm. Look it up yourself, and you'll find it. It's very easy to find. Kolomovsky, the Ukrainian Israeli Cypriot oligarch, was financing Zelensky, was financing Joe Biden. God alone knows who else he was financing, and he was just one.
There's a whole rotten bunch of these people here in Ukraine, and they were all busy paying off the West so that they could carry on their little evil deeds and whatnot. Mhmm. If you want to know why the West is freaking out over Ukraine, you have to understand that they are all terrified that the truth will come out in Ukraine.
reSee.it AI Summary
I see Vice President JD Vance trying to justify bombing Iran, twisting "America First" into a flimsy excuse for another reckless war. This isn't about defending America; it's about perpetuating the Neo-Con agenda. Trump promised to "drain the swamp," not dive into the same disastrous foreign entanglements. Bombing Iran would betray that promise.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Here we go again, Vice President JD Vance scrambling to justify bombing Iran, twisting "America First" into a hollow excuse for yet another reckless war. Let’s cut the crap: this isn’t about defending America, it’s about keeping the tired, blood-soaked Neo-Con playbook alive. Trump promised to "drain the swamp" , not dive headfirst into the same disastrous foreign entanglements. Bombing Iran would be the ultimate betrayal of that promise,and proof that the swamp drained him instead.....
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes President Trump gets to define "America First" because he was elected and leads the movement. The President is focused on the core American national interest: ensuring Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.
When asked how long diplomacy should be given before military action, the speaker says the President will pursue diplomacy until he believes there is no opportunity left. Once diplomacy has run its course, the President will do what he needs to end Iranian enrichment and the nuclear program. The speaker advises the President to trust his instincts, which he believes are the best of any president or political leader he's ever seen. The speaker thinks the President knows when diplomacy has run its course and when to employ the military to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The President will continue working the process and allow diplomacy to unfold, while retaining the option to do whatever is necessary to keep Americans safe.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Look, I I I I what the president said is is so perfect about this. I think he gets to define America first because he's the person who ran, who was elected, and who actually leads this movement. And for all of the online chatter, what I see, and I've seen it very privately, of course, and I've seen it very publicly, the president is very focused on a core American national interest. And that national interest is the state of Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 1: So how long do you give diplomacy a chance to work before it's time to drop a bunker buster?
Speaker 0: Look, the president has to answer that question. Right? And, I I think that what he said is he's gonna pursue diplomacy until he thinks that there isn't an opportunity. And once he decides that diplomacy has completely run its course, that we're not we're not gonna get anything out of additional talks, then I think the president is gonna do what he needs to do to end Iranian enrichment and end that Iranian nuclear program. Again, the president will make that final decision.
I do think that we're running out of time, but as the president said yesterday, he wants to give it a little bit more time to see what diplomacy can accomplish. Obviously, a
Speaker 1: lot of people in president Trump's ear giving him advice. Advice. Sure. Whether it's the military, his cabinet, you yourself. What advice are you giving him?
The advice that I'm giving him is is, sir, trust your instincts.
Speaker 0: He's got the best instincts of any president I've ever seen, of any political leader that I've ever seen. I think that he knows when diplomacy has run its course, and he'll know when ultimately he has to employ the American military to make sure that Iran doesn't have a nuclear program.
Speaker 1: You said you think we're running out of time. The president says he wants to take about two weeks to think about it. Is that within your range? Well,
Speaker 0: I I think as the president said, he's not gonna tell anybody exactly when or what he's gonna do. He's gonna continue working this process. He's gonna let the diplomatic process unfold. And in the meantime, of course, the president of The United States can do whatever he needs to do, whenever he needs to do it to keep the American people safe.
@ricwe123 - Richard
"Western Values" In 2003 Gaddafi agreed to dismantle Libya's WMDS. In 2009 Hillary Clinton welcomed Gaddafi's son,Mutassim,and said: "We deeply value the relationship between the US and Libya" Years later she giggled upon hearing he and his father were brutally lynched.... https://t.co/4PxxU2i3A6
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker welcomes Minister Qaddafi to the State Department, stating that the United States deeply values its relationship with Libya. The speaker expresses enthusiasm for deepening and broadening cooperation between the two countries and looks forward to building on the existing relationship. Minister Qaddafi expresses his gratitude.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I am very pleased to welcome Minister Qaddafi here to the State Department. We deeply value the relationship between The United States and Libya. We have many opportunities to deepen and broaden our cooperation, and I'm very much looking forward to building on this relationship. So, Mr. Minister, welcome so much here.
Thank you. We're delighted you're here. Thank you. Thank you all very much. You're welcome.
Thank you.
@ricwe123 - Richard
John Mearsheimer lays it out with brutal clarity: If nations like Iran don’t get nukes, predators like the US and Israel will rip them to shreds without hesitation. North Korea got the memo, disarmament is a death sentence. The only way to survive in this world is to be armed to the teeth.
Video Transcript AI Summary
A nuclear-armed Iran would bring stability to the region because nuclear weapons are weapons of peace and deterrence with hardly any offensive capability. If Iran had a nuclear deterrent, the United States and Israel would not threaten to attack, similar to how the US didn't invade Iraq when Saddam potentially had nuclear weapons, or Libya when Gaddafi did not.
While proliferation is possible with countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia acquiring nuclear weapons, it's unlikely because Iran wouldn't be able to blackmail anyone. The US would extend its nuclear umbrella over Saudi Arabia and Turkey, deterring Iran from blackmail. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent, which is why states pursue them.
The US and Israel would back off from threatening Iran if it obtained nuclear weapons. Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program and was killed, while North Korea won't give up its nuclear weapons because they are the ultimate deterrent. The US and Israel aren't giving up their nuclear weapons either. There are powerful incentives for countries in dangerous neighborhoods to acquire nuclear weapons.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think there's no question that a nuclear armed Iran would bring stability to the region because nuclear weapons are weapons of peace. They're weapons of deterrence. They have hardly any offensive capability at all. And if Iran had a nuclear deterrent, there's no way that the United States or Israel for that matter would be threatening to attack Iran now. In the same way that if Saddam had had nuclear weapons in 02/2003, the United States would not have invaded Iraq.
And if Libya had nuclear weapons in 02/2011, The United States would not have gone to war against Libya. So I think that if you had a Middle East where other states besides Israel, and this of course includes Iran, had a nuclear deterrent, it would be a more peaceful region. Well, it's possible there'll be some proliferation. I wouldn't bet against the fact that maybe Turkey or Saudi Arabia would acquire nuclear weapons, but people have been predicting widespread proliferation for decades now, and it's never happened. But I think there are two reasons that it wouldn't happen.
One is that the Iranians would not be able to blackmail anybody in the neighborhood with their nuclear weapons. We've created this myth in this country over the past few years in talking about Iran that any country that acquires nuclear weapons can blackmail other countries or use those nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. We have a lot of theory and a huge amount of empirical evidence, sixty seven years now, which show that no country with nuclear weapons can blackmail another country as long as somebody is protecting that country or it has its own nuclear weapons. And this leads to the reason. The United States is gonna extend its nuclear umbrella over Saudi Arabia and over Turkey the way it extended it over Germany and Japan during the Cold War.
And we will make it perfectly clear to the Iranians that they cannot blackmail anybody. So there'll be no great incentive for Turkey or, for, Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons. And as you know, when you're involved in contact sports, it can be very dangerous. So they live in a dangerous world. On top of that, nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent.
It doesn't get any better than nuclear weapons. Of course, this is why states pursue nuclear weapons. I believe that if Iran had nuclear weapons, The United States and Israel would not be threatening to attack Iran. You don't attack a country that has nuclear weapons and put its survival at risk. So I think if Iran were to get nuclear weapons, The United States and Israel would back off and stop threatening them.
Then there's always the case of Libya. You remember Colonel Gaddafi? We told Colonel Gaddafi that if he gave up his nuclear weapons program, his weapons of mass destruction programs, that we would leave him alone. You know what happened to Colonel Gaddafi. He's now six feet under, and we helped put him six feet under.
If I were Colonel Qaddafi, I would have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea? You think seriously that North Korea is gonna give up its nuclear weapons? I don't understand the charade that we engage in where we're constantly acting as if North Korea is gonna give up its nuclear weapons. They'd be nuts to give up their nuclear weapons.
Oh, by the way, do you see any evidence The United States is giving up its nuclear weapons? Is Israel giving up its nuclear weapons? Is Britain giving up its nuclear weapons? Is India, Pakistan? Of course, they're not.
Why not? Because nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent. In the case of Israel, it's by far the most powerful military in the Middle East at the conventional level. Does it really need nuclear weapons? You could argue it doesn't, but they're not giving them up, nor is Uncle Sam.
Uncle Sam is by far the most powerful state on the planet in terms of conventional forces. It has never shown an iota of interest in giving up its nuclear weapons. In fact, it's gonna modernize its nuclear deterrent. So all I'm saying here is they're really powerful incentives for a country living in a dangerous neighborhood that has The United States and Israel out there with their gun sights on you to get nuclear weapons.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Before Volodymyr Zelensky turned into a mouthpiece for Washington, he stood in Red Square and made it clear: "I'm in Red Square and can confirm there's no anti-Ukrainian sentiment in Russia. Everything's fine here, and honestly, my dislike for you Banderites is growing" https://t.co/Zgn3OkuPAz
Video Transcript AI Summary
**Original Language Summary:**
Все истории и легенды об информационной антиукраинской войне в России – неправда. Спикер подтверждает, что находится здесь второй день, и отмечает, что "бендеровцев" уже немного недолюбливают.
**English Translation:**
All stories and legends about an anti-Ukrainian information war in Russia are untrue. The speaker confirms being there for the second day and notes that "Banderites" are already slightly disliked.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Все истории, все легенды о том, что в России происходит информационная антиукраинская война это все неправда. Я подтверждаю, я нахожусь здесь уже второй день и вас, бендировцы, уже немножко недолюбливают. Ну а специально для
reSee.it AI Summary
For those insisting this war was "unprovoked," let's set the record straight: In February 2014, Senator Chris Murphy and John McCain openly acknowledged the US's involvement in toppling Ukraine's elected president, Yanukovych, through sanctions and political interference. It was regime change, plain and simple.
@ricwe123 - Richard
For anyone still parroting the fabricated bullshit lie that this war was "unprovoked", here’s a dose of reality: In February 2014, Senator Chris Murphy stood alongside John McCain in Maidan Square and openly bragged about the US role in toppling Ukraine’s elected president, Yanukovych. Through sanctions, threats and political meddling, Washington helped orchestrate the coup,and didn’t even bother to hide it. Call it what it was: regime change, plain and simple.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The US believes sanctions and threats of sanctions partly forced Yanukovych from office and wants to support the new Ukrainian government. US involvement included senators and State Department members on the ground, plus Obama administration sanctions. The US believes its clear position helped lead to the regime change. Supporting Ukraine allows it to determine its own future, though it may appear as a US-Russia conflict. The US has an economic interest in Ukraine joining the EU due to trade agreement benefits.
Yanukovych was elected in 2010 with elections scheduled for 2015. Questions arise about foreign ministers supporting protests, and the presence of far-right politicians, including fascists and xenophobes, within the Ukrainian opposition who are against the EU.
Yanukovych lost legitimacy by using force against peaceful protests, prompting US involvement. Foreign leaders were present to support the right to protest. While radical elements and anti-Semitism existed within the opposition, they were a small minority. There is confidence that the new government will be inclusive and tolerant. The Foreign Relations Committee will work to ensure radical elements do not have a central role in the coalition government.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think it was our role, sanctions and threats of sanctions that forced, in part, Yanukovych from office. Now, the question is what can we do to support this new government? There's gonna be a lot of talk about an assistance package. With respect to Ukraine, we have not sat on the sidelines. We have been very much involved.
Members of the senate who have been there, members of the state department who have been on the square, the administration the Obama administration passed sanctions. The Senate was prepared to pass its own set of sanctions. And as I said, I really think that the clear position of The United States has in part been what has helped lead to this change in regimes. So I know that there is merit in the claim that The United States sort of has these principles and then we selectively apply them. We get involved in certain places and then we don't get involved in other places.
But I think if ultimately this is a peaceful transition to a new government in Ukraine, it'll be The United States on the streets of Ukraine who will be seen as a great friend in helping make that transition happen. This is really about supporting one of the biggest, most important countries in the Eurasian region, be able to determine for themselves what their future is. And it looks to people like this is The United States and Russia once again fighting, maybe not in military terms, but on economic terms in a country that we both care about. But really, ultimately, I think this is about us supporting the wishes of Ukraine. And, you know, the there is a US interest, here.
We are in the middle of negotiating a new trade agreement with Europe. To my state, it's enormously important. We do 40% of our trade in Connecticut with Europe. If Ukraine is part of the European Union, and thus is part of this new trade agreement with The United States, that could result in billions of dollars in new economic opportunities for The US. So we do have an economic interest in the Ukraine being part of the European Union, and we shouldn't be shy about making clear that interest.
Speaker 1: Isn't it true that Unikovich was elected for the first time in 2010 for one five year term, that elections were scheduled for 02/2015? The second point is, why is it okay for foreign ministers from other countries to show up during protest movements? Let's say in Ukraine, like the foreign ministers of Poland and Germany, and support the protesters against the current government there. Wouldn't it be something similar to the foreign ministers of, let's say, Mexico and Canada showing up during the Occupy Wall Street movement and saying, yes, we agree that your government is corrupt. And the third point is, why isn't the West and America talking about the fact that a large or significant portion of the Ukrainian opposition right now is made up of far right politicians, including from the the party Slaborda, which openly is fascist and xenophobic.
And they said that they don't wanna join the EU because they consider the EU to be a bunch of gays and Jews, just as well as they say that they don't don't wanna join the imperialist Moscow regime.
Speaker 0: Let me me take take all those very quickly one at a time. You're right. Yanukovych was elected, and I mentioned this before. I understand the difficult position here, which is that Yanukovych was elected and we are not in the business of encouraging rebellions and revolutions on the streets against elected leaders because we ultimately think that elections, as you mentioned, are the place in which you should settle your differences. The issue here is that Yanukovych lost his legitimacy to govern when he used force to try to break up these protests.
And The United States didn't go on to that square in any meaningful way, until, the president tried to break up the peaceful protests. That's why senator McCain and I went. And we certainly got a lot of grief from people asking why two US senators are going to the square to support a protest movement against an elected government. We did that because we think that there were human rights and civil rights that were violated there, and we've always stood up for that, for that concept. And again, I think that answers your second question as to why you had foreign ministers and foreign leaders who were on that square.
It was because we're standing up for the idea that people should be able to lodge protests against their government. You are right that there is an element of the opposition that has some real radical ideas, and there is an element of anti Semitism, that was present on that square. I will tell you from having been there, if there were 500,000 people there, maybe a couple thousand of them represented that viewpoint. And so by and large, this movement completely rejects those radical and prejudicial ideas. And I have confidence that this new government is going to be inclusive and going to be tolerant.
And it will be part of our job, I think, as members of the Foreign Relations Committee to make sure that those kind of more radical elements don't have a seat at the middle of the table as the coalition government goes
@ricwe123 - Richard
Looking back, Putin’s 2007 Munich speech was a clear warning. This is existential. But the West just dismissed it with arrogant ignorance. What they shrugged off back then is now exploding in their faces,while Russia keeps pushing forward, grabbing more and more territory.... https://t.co/fCzx8iFIIb
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker addresses international security, stating it involves more than military and political stability, including global economic stability and dialogue between civilizations. The speaker critiques the concept of a unipolar world led by one master, arguing it's flawed and undemocratic.
The speaker claims the hyper-use of military force is plunging the world into conflict, with increasing disdain for international law. The speaker notes the economic potential of countries like India, China and the BRIC countries will strengthen multipolarity. The speaker advocates for openness, transparency, and predictability in politics, with the UN as the sole legitimate authority for using military force.
The speaker highlights the stagnation in disarmament and supports renewing dialogue, while expressing concern over plans to expand anti-missile defense systems to Europe and NATO expansion. The speaker emphasizes the need to strengthen the nonproliferation regime and proposes international centers for uranium enrichment. The speaker calls for uniform market principles and transparent conditions in the energy sector.
The speaker criticizes developed countries for maintaining agricultural subsidies that hinder developing countries. The speaker also criticizes the OSCE, claiming it is being used to promote the interests of select countries. The speaker concludes by affirming Russia's commitment to an independent foreign policy and collaboration with responsible partners to build a fair and democratic world order.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, dear madam federal chancellor, mister Telczyk. Ladies and gentlemen, I am truly grateful to be invited to such a representative conference that has assembled politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs, and experts from more than 40 nations. This conference's structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conference's format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems. And if my comments seem unduly polemic, pointed, or inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry
Speaker 1: with me.
Speaker 0: After all, this is only a conference. And I hope that after the first two or three minutes of my speech, mister Telczyk will not turn on the red light over there.
Speaker 1: Therefore, it is well known
Speaker 0: that international security compromises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security, and developing a dialogue between civilizations. This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that security for one is security for all. As Franklin d Roosevelt said, during the first few days that the second world war was breaking out, When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger. These words remain topical today.
Incidentally, the theme of our conference, global crisis, global responsibility, exemplifies this. Only two decades ago, the world was ideologically and economically divided, and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security. This global standoff pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international communities and the world's agenda. And just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I'm referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards, and other typical aspects of Cold War block thinking.
The unipolar world that had been proposed after the cold war did not take place either. The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods. We've seen aspirations to world supremacy and what hasn't happened in world history. However, what is a unipolar world? However, one might embellish this term.
At the end of the day, it refers to one type of situation, namely one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign, and at the end of the day, this is peniscuous not only for those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within. And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interest and opinions of the minority. Incidentally, Russia, we are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason, those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.
I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable, but also impossible in today's world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today's and precisely in today's world, And the military, political, and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis, there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization. Along with this, what is happening in today's world, and we just started to discuss this, is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept to international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world, and with which results, unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedy and created new centers of tension.
Judge for yourself. Wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mister Telczyk mentioned this very gently. And no less people perish in these conflicts. Even more are dying than before, significantly more, significantly more.
Today, we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force, military force in international relations. Force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result, we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law, And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system.
One state, and of course, first and foremost, The United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural, and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? In international relations, we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so called issues of political expediency based on the current political climate.
And, of course, this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this. No one feels safe because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course, such a policy stimulates an arms race.
The force's dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats, though they were also known before, have appeared. And today, threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character. I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security. And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interest of all participants in international dialogue, especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly, changes in the light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions.
Madam federal chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of The United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries, Brazil, Russia, India, and China surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts, this gap will only increase in the future. There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centers of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.
In connection with the role of multilateral diplomacy, it's significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency, and predictability in politics is uncontested. The use of force should be a really exceptional measure comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial systems of certain states. However, today, we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty, even for murderers and other dangerous criminals, are aerially participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are killing people, hundreds and thousands of civilians.
And at the same time, the question arises of whether we should be indifferent and aloof to various internal conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian regimes, to tyrants, and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As a matter of fact, this was also at the center of the question that our dear colleague, mister Lieberman, asked the federal chancellor. If I correctly understood your question, then, of course, it is a serious one. Can we be indifferent observers in view of what is happening? I will try to answer your question as well.
Of course not. But we do have the means to counter these threats. Certainly, we do. It is sufficient to look at recent history. Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy?
Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime. A peaceful transformation. And what a regime? With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons? Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity?
Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction, we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values, and for the law? I'm convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the charter of the United Nations. And in connection with this, either I did not understand what our colleague, the Italian defense minister, just said or what he said was inexact. In any case, I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different points of view.
Or I didn't hear correctly. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. We do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change. Otherwise, the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied.
Along with this, it is necessary to make sure that international law have a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms. And one must not forget that democratic political actions necessarily go along with discussion and our laborious decision making processes. Dear ladies and gentlemen, the potential danger of the destabilization of international relations is connected with obvious stagnation in the disarmament issue. Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question. It is important to conserve the international legal framework relating to weapons destruction, and therefore, continuity in the process of producing nuclear weapons.
Together with The United States Of America, we agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1,700 to 2,000 nuclear warheads by the 12/31/2012. Russia intends to strictly fulfill the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and will refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if today, the new American defense minister declares that The United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one might say, under a pillow or under
Speaker 1: the blanket, then I suggest that
Speaker 0: we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration. Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones. In connection with this, I would like to recall that in the nineteen eighties, the USSR and the United States signed an agreement for destroying a whole range of small and medium range missiles, but these documents do not have a universal character.
Today, many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People's Republic Of Korea, The Republic Of Korea,
Speaker 1: India, Iran,
Speaker 0: Pakistan, and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons assholes. And only The United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapon systems. It is obvious that in these conditions, we must think about ensuring our own security. At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new destabilizing high-tech weapons.
Needless to say, it refers to measures to prevent a new area of confrontation, especially in outer space. Star Wars is no longer a fantasy. It is a reality. In the middle of the nineteen eighties, our American partners were already able to intercept their own satellite. In Russia's opinion, the militarization of outer space could only have unpredictable consequences for the international community and provoked nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era.
We have come forward more than once with initiatives designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space. Today, I would like to tell you that we have prepared a project for an agreement on the prevention of deploying weapons in outer space. And in the near future, it will be sent to our partners as an official proposal. Let's work on this together. Plans to expand certain elements of the anti missile defense system to Europe cannot help but disturb us.
Who needs the next step of what would be? In this case, an inevitable arms race. I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do. Missile weapons with a range of about five to 8,000 kilometers that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so called problem countries. In the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable.
And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through Western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear. And in Germany, I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe. The adaptive treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw block.
Seven years have passed, and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation. NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank restrictions and deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones until Russia removed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia. Even according to an accelerated schedule, we resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues as everybody knows. There are still 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet times.
We constantly discuss this
Speaker 1: issue with mister Solana, and
Speaker 0: he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this direction. But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously, the so called flexible frontline American bases with up to 5,000 men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders.
We continue to strictly fulfill the treaty obligations. Do not react to these actions at all. I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with the ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. We have the right to
Speaker 1: ask, against
Speaker 0: whom is this expansion intended? In what happens to the assurances our Western partners
Speaker 1: made after
Speaker 0: the dissolution of the Warsaw pact. Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them, but I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO general secretary, mister Warner in Brussels, on the 05/17/1990. He said at that time that
Speaker 1: the fact that
Speaker 0: we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory Is the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee? Where are these guarantees? The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs, But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible, thanks to a historic change, one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia, a choice in favor of democracy, freedom, openness, and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family. And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us. These walls may be virtual, but they are nevertheless divided, ones that cut through our continent.
And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades as well as several generations of politicians to dissemble and dismantle these new walls? Dear ladies and gentlemen, we are unequivocally in favor of strengthening the regime of nonproliferation. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries, with all good reasons, want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: This creates serious international tensions.
Speaker 0: The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear program acts as a clear example. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving these conflicts of interest, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilizing crises because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran. We both know this. We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Last year, Russia put forward the initiative to establish international centers for the enrichment of uranium.
We are open to the possibility that such sensors not only be created in Russia, but also in other countries where there is a legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy. Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy could guarantee that they will receive fuel through direct participation in these sensors. And the sensors would, of course, operate under strict IAEA supervision. The latest initiatives put forward by American president George w Bush are in conformity with the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and The USA are objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the nonproliferation of weapons, mass destruction, and their deployment.
It is precisely our country with leading nuclear and missile capabilities that must act as leaders in developing new, stricter nonproliferation measures. Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American friends. In general, we should talk about establishing a world system, political incentives, and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in the state's interest to establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle, but they would still have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy capabilities. In connection with this, I shall talk about international energy cooperation in more detail.
Madam federal chancellor also spoke about this briefly. She mentioned, touched on
Speaker 1: this theme.
Speaker 0: In the energy sector, Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure, or blackmail. We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects. According to different estimates, up to 26 of the oil extraction in
Speaker 1: Russia, and
Speaker 0: please think about this figure, up to 26% of the oil extraction in Russia is done by foreign capital. Try try to find me a similar example where Russian businesses participate extensively in the key economic sectors in Western countries. Such examples do not exist. There are no such examples. I would also recall the parity of foreign investments in
Speaker 1: Russia and
Speaker 0: those Russia makes abroad. The parity is about 15 to one. And here you have an obvious example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy. Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to compete fairly.
For that reason, more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian economy. Experts in our Western partners are objectively evaluating these changes. As such, Russia's OECD sovereign credit rating improved, and Russia passed from the fourth to the third group.
Speaker 1: And today in Munich,
Speaker 0: I would like to use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their
Speaker 1: help in the above decision.
Speaker 0: Furthermore, as you know, the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its final stages. I would point out that during long, difficult talks, we heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once, for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market. And there is still one more important theme, which directly affects global security. Today, many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere?
On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programs to help the world's poorest countries, and at times, financial resources. To be honest, and many here also know this, linked with the development of that same donor country's companies. And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies, which limits some countries' access to high-tech products. And let's say things as they are. One hand distributes charitable help, and the other hand not only preserves economic backed upness, but also reaps the profits thereof.
The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results with the growth of radicalism, extremism, but feeds terrorism and local conflict. And if all this happens in, shall we say, a region such as The Middle
Speaker 1: East, where there is increasingly dissent of
Speaker 0: the world at large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilization.
Speaker 1: It is
Speaker 0: obvious that the world's leading countries should see this threat and that they should therefore build a more democratic fairer system, global economic relations, a system that will give everyone a chance and the possibility to develop. Dear ladies and gentlemen, speaking at the conference on security policy, it is impossible not to mention the
Speaker 1: activities of
Speaker 0: the organization for security, the cooperation in Europe, the OSCE. As is well known, this organization was created to examine all, I shall emphasize it, all aspects of security, military, political, economic, humanitarian, and especially the relations between these spheres. What do we see happening today? We see that this balance is clearly destroyed. People are trying to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interests of one or of a group
Speaker 1: of countries. And this
Speaker 0: task is also being accomplished by the OSCE's bureaucratic apparatus, which is absolutely not connected with the state founders in any way. The decision making procedures and the involvement of so called nongovernmental organizations are tailored from this task. These organizations are formally independent as much as they are purposefully financed and therefore under control. According to the founding documents, in the humanitarian sphere, the OSCE designed to assist country members in observing international human rights norms at their request. This is an important task.
We support this. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop. It is obvious that such interference does not promote the development of democratic states at all. In the contrary, it makes them dependent, and as a consequence, politically and economically unstable. Dear ladies and
Speaker 1: gentlemen, in conclusion,
Speaker 0: I would like to note the following. We very often, and personally, I very often hear appeals by our partners,
Speaker 1: including our European partners, to
Speaker 0: the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs. In connection with this, I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history which spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy. We are not going to change this tradition today.
At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed. We have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And, of course, we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world law. Will ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all. Thank you for your attention.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Back in December 2013, Victoria Nuland openly bragged that the US had funneled $5 billion into Ukraine since 1991 to shove its pro-Western agenda down their throats. Washington was already laying the groundwork for the 2014 Maidan coup to oust Yanukovych. "Unprovoked" 😂😂😂 https://t.co/GHXBj9R7Lm
Video Transcript AI Summary
Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians in building democratic skills and institutions, promoting civic participation, and good governance. These are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. The U.S. has invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these goals, which will ensure a secure, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We've invested over $5,000,000,000 to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.
@ricwe123 - Richard
This is a very interesting interview....
reSee.it AI Summary
The war in Ukraine began in 2014, following a coup that ousted President Yanukovych and led to the rise of a pro-Western government. This shift prompted Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk to seek independence. Despite Putin's attempts at peace through the Minsk Agreements, Western leaders undermined these efforts, using Ukraine as a pawn while supplying arms. For eight years, the Ukrainian military, supported by extremist groups, attacked Donbas civilians. NATO's expansion further escalated tensions, leaving Putin to intervene in defense of eastern Ukraine, while the Western media perpetuates a misleading narrative.
@ricwe123 - Richard
The war in Ukraine didn’t start in 2022,it began in 2014, when the West orchestrated a coup that toppled the democratically elected President Yanukovych and installed a corrupt, pro-Western puppet in Kyiv. That betrayal pushed Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk to break away from a regime they no longer recognized. Twice, Putin extended an olive branch through the Minsk Agreements. And twice, Merkel and Macron knowingly sabotaged any chance at peace, weaponizing Ukraine as a pawn to bait Russia while the West funneled in arms and stoked the fire. For eight years, the Ukrainian military,alongside neo-Nazi death squads,waged a brutal campaign against Donbas, slaughtering civilians whose only crime was rejecting Kyiv’s illegitimate rule. NATO’s reckless march eastward only poured fuel on the fire, and in the face of non-stop terror, Putin had no choice but to step in and defend the people of eastern Ukraine. But don’t expect the Western media to tell you the truth,they’re too busy selling propaganda.....
Video Transcript AI Summary
**Original Language Summary:**
Снаряды, летящие в ЛДНР, сравниваются с Волынской резней. Утверждается, что националистические батальоны на Украине пытают людей, сдирая кожу с лица, как во время Волынской резни. Тактика украинских вооруженных сил на Донбассе якобы схожа с тактикой гитлеровских нацистов и бандеровцев. Утверждается, что потомки бандеровцев создали в ЛДНР концентрационные лагеря, где людей жестоко пытали: загоняли иголки под ногти, ломали руки, вбивали гвозди в черепа. Сообщается о существовании неофициальной тюрьмы на мариупольском аэродроме и концентрационного лагеря Правого сектора на реке Волчьей, где людей пытали. Утверждается, что в пыточной СБУ людей вешали на дыбу и пытали паяльной лампой. Сообщается о комнатах в Мариуполе, забитых обугленными телами. Утверждается, что украинские военные расстреливают мирное население, включая детей, в Донецке.
**English Translation:**
Shells flying into the LDNR are compared to the Volyn massacre. It is claimed that nationalist battalions in Ukraine torture people, flaying the skin from their faces, as during the Volyn massacre. The tactics of the Ukrainian armed forces in the Donbass are allegedly similar to the tactics of Hitler's Nazis and Bandera supporters. It is alleged that the descendants of Bandera supporters created concentration camps in the LDNR, where people were brutally tortured: needles were driven under their fingernails, arms were broken, and nails were hammered into their skulls. There are reports of the existence of an unofficial prison at the Mariupol airfield and a Right Sector concentration camp on the Volchya River, where people were tortured. It is alleged that in the SBU torture chamber, people were hung on the rack and tortured with a soldering iron. Reports of rooms in Mariupol filled with charred bodies. It is alleged that Ukrainian soldiers are shooting at civilians, including children, in Donetsk.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Вот эти снаряды, которые сейчас летят в ЛДНР, это же ведь убийство. А что, нужно обязательно убивать так, как было в Волыни? Как это было во Львове?
Speaker 1: Где вообще волынские? Это
Speaker 0: же одно и то же, по большому счету. На них летят снаряды, их не жалеют ни на секунду. Но это же абсолютно те же самые методы. Принцип один и тот же. Массовое запугивание, сбор людей и посылается туда, внутрь этих людей, смерть.
Ну скажите, в чем разница?
Speaker 1: -Достаточное количество моих друзей сейчас воюют на территории Украины, они рассказывают достаточно страшные вещи, как ведут себя националистические батальоны. Например, заживость человека с лица снимают кожу. Такая практика активно использовалась во время Волынской резни.
Speaker 2: А сколько там человек? Вы можете Вот
Speaker 3: вы можете
Speaker 2: Это сопоставимо с фактом, когда они расстреливали в Бабьем Яру. В Бабьеме Яром тоже известный фактор, что они не только немцы, там и бандеровцы развлекались.
Speaker 4: Данные преступления были разрешены официально с самого начала Майдана. Если мы помним слова тех, кто выходил на трибуны Когда начался Майдан, провозглашалось одно, что едина Украина, украинский язык, люди мыслят не так, они должны быть уничтожены. Наша
Speaker 2: повстанша хода только начинается, так?
Speaker 1: Тактика применения вооруженных сил, которую мы имеем на Донбассе, особенно в отношении гражданского мирного населения, она мало чем отличается от тактики и гитлеровских нацистов, и бандеровцев времён Второй мировой войны. То, что мы видели на протяжении восьми лет с 2014 года на юго-востоке Украины, это очень и очень похоже.
Speaker 0: Вот эти ребята, потомки националистов, бандеровцев, начали с лихвой активно воспринимать эти постулаты, на которых они были воспитаны. -Националистические постулаты. Это привело к тому, что на территории ЛДНР появились концентрационные лагеря, где с особой жестокостью людей пытали. Загонялись иголки под ногти, ломались руки, вбивались гвозди в черепа.
Speaker 5: В мариупольском аэродроме с июня 2014 года функционировала библиотека. Это вот неофициальная тюрьма, которой нет. Туда всех задержанных и привозили. -Ну, тут держали, в маленькой комнате, вот сюда больше женщин закрывали, кто
Speaker 3: большой мужчина. У меня на правой руке вот тут не было кожи. Вот она полосочка, это меня пытались полностью снять живем в школу. Днепропетровская область, Донецкая и Запорожская. Вот такое пересечение.
И там, на реке Волчьей, пионерский лагерь. Его территории перевалочная фаза Правого сектора, где в подвале и был организован концентрационный лагерь.
Speaker 4: -Правый сектор сделал там лагерь. Людей там вообще не считали за людей.
Speaker 3: Все знали о том, что существует пыточная СБУ. То есть там было все оборудовано цепями, там была дыба. На эту дыбу вешали людей и просто вставляли включенную паяльную лампу. До тех пор, пока во рту не будет кипеть кровь.
Speaker 4: Практически в живых людей снимали кожу, когда подвешивали на дыбу, когда пытали током, когда пытали водой, когда на дыбе человек мог висеть, это просто в застенках СБУ, мог висеть часами, истекая кровью и умирая на этой дыбе. Было много концлагерей, о которых предстоит узнать. Предстоит узнать их историю и историю тех людей, которые там были убиты, растерзаны и даже не похоронены.
Speaker 0: Что происходило в Мариуполе, мы не знаем. Есть комнаты забитые обугленными телами. Кто эти люди? Пока мы не проведем расследование понять это просто невозможно.
Speaker 2: Они расстреливают свое собственное население, вот они расстреливают, например, Донецк. Там мирные жители, в том числе и дети. Ну сколько уже детей погибло?
@ricwe123 - Richard
It was pure mass hysteria, and now we're all supposed to live in fear of Russia...... https://t.co/b3sWGMRLPf
Video Transcript AI Summary
French Summary:
Le résultat du second tour a démenti tous les sondages et pronostics. Le locuteur annonce sa victoire et celle de son groupe.
English Translation:
The result of the second round has defied all polls and predictions. The speaker announces his victory and that of his group.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mettez les masses, mettez les masses. Bien, mesdames, mesdames et messieurs, le résultat de ce second tour a démenti tous les sondages et d'où jouer tous les pronostics. Ce soir j'ai gagné et nous avons gagné.
@ricwe123 - Richard
The only church now permitted in Zelensky's Ukraine openly celebrates the birthday of Stepan Bandera. Stepan Bandera,a Ukrainian nazi responsible for the mass murder of thousands of Poles and Jews...... https://t.co/xAncHHlHFa
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a clip of Victoria Nuland's 2016 testimony before Congress, where she detailed the extensive involvement of the US in Ukraine post-2014 coup. She mentioned US advisors in 12 ministries, trained police in 18 cities, and significant financial support, including $266 million for military training.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Here we have Victoria Nuland in 2016, openly testifying before Congress about just how deep the US was in running Ukraine’s government after the 2014 coup. She laid it all out: US advisors embedded in 12 Ukrainian ministries, American-trained police in 18 cities, the US Treasury shutting down 60 Ukrainian banks while shielding depositors’ assets, and a cool $266 million spent on training Ukrainian soldiers. "Unprovoked" 😂😂😂😂
Video Transcript AI Summary
US advisors are assisting in nearly a dozen Ukrainian ministries and localities by helping deliver services, improve tax collection, eliminate fraud, and modernize institutions. We've helped train and vet police officers now patrolling the streets of 18 cities. US-funded legal aid attorneys have won two thirds of all acquittals in Ukrainian courtrooms. Treasury and State Department advisors have assisted Ukraine in closing over 60 failed banks, protecting the assets of depositors. Over $266 million has been invested in the security sector, training soldiers and National Guard personnel, as well as supplying life-saving gear. In FY '16, we're continuing the training and equipping of Ukraine's border guards, military, and coast guard.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And US Advisers serve in almost a dozen Ukrainian ministries and localities, helping to deliver services, eliminate fraud and abuse, improve tax collection, and modernize Ukrainian institutions. With US help, newly vetted and trained police officers are patrolling the cities the streets of 18 Ukrainian cities. In courtrooms across Ukraine, free legal aid attorneys funded by The US have won two thirds of all the acquittals in the countries. Treasury and State Department advisers have helped Ukraine shutter over 60 failed banks and protected the assets of depositors. And since there can be no reform in Ukraine without security, over $266,000,000 of our support has been in the security sector, training 1,200 soldiers and 750 Ukrainian National Guard personnel, and supplying life saving gear.
In FY '16, we are continuing that training and equipment of more of Ukraine's Border Guards, military, and coast guard.
@ricwe123 - Richard
After four years of nonstop obvious bullshit from the Biden administration, it’s honestly a breath of fresh air to hear a US President finally call it like it is.... 💪💪💪 https://t.co/CWBMYywUvo
Video Transcript AI Summary
It's tough to deal with the hatred for Putin, but the other side isn't exactly thrilled either. I want to get this situation resolved; I'm aligned with the world on that. I can be tougher than anyone, but that won't get us a deal.
We're trying to end the destruction of your country. It's disrespectful to come here and litigate this in front of the American media. Everyone has problems during war, even us.
You're not in a good position and are gambling with World War Three, being disrespectful to a country that's backed you. Have you even said thank you? You campaigned for the opposition. Your country is in big trouble and you're not winning. We gave you $350 billion in equipment. You need to be thankful. You don't have the cards. We need a ceasefire, guarantees. Obama gave you sheets; I gave you javelins. Without us, you don't have any cards.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This thing over with. You see the hatred he's got for Putin. It's very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate. He's got tremendous hatred. And I understand that, but I can tell you the other side isn't exactly in love with, you know, him either.
So it's not a question of alignment. I have to I'm aligned with the world. I wanna get the thing set. I'm aligned with Europe. I wanna see if we can get this thing done.
You want me to be tough? I could be tougher than any human being you've ever seen. I'd be so tough, but you're never gonna get a deal that way. So that's the way it goes. Alright.
One more question.
Speaker 1: Well, that hey. I I will respond to this. So look. For four years in The United States Of America, we had a president who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin, and then Putin invaded Ukraine and destroyed a significant chunk of the country. The path to peace and the path to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy.
We tried the pathway of Joe Biden of thumping our chest and pretending that the president of The United States' words mattered more than the president of The United States' actions. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That's what president Trump is doing. Can I ask you? Sure.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Okay. So he occupied it, our parts, big parts of Ukraine, parts of East and Crimea. So he occupied it on 2014. So during a lot of years I'm not speaking about just Biden, but those time was Obama, then president Obama, then president Trump, then president Biden, now president Trump, and god bless. Now president Trump will stop him.
But during 2014, nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took. He killed people. You know what the contact was?
Speaker 0: 2015.
Speaker 1: 20 14. 20 14 to
Speaker 0: 2015. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I was I was not here.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But That's exactly right.
Speaker 2: Yes. But during 2014 till 2022, you know, the well, the situation the same, that people are been dying on the contact line. Nobody stopped him. You know, that we had conversations with him, a lot of conversation, my bilateral conversation, and we signed him, me, like a new president. In 2019, I signed with him the deal.
I signed with him, Macron and Merkel. We signed ceasefire. Seasefire, all of them told me that he will never go. We signed him with gas contract. Gas contract.
Yes. But after that, he broken the ceasefire. He killed our people, and he didn't exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners, but he didn't do it. What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about?
What what do you what do do you mean?
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that's gonna end the destruction of your country. Yes. But if you Mister president mister president, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring it into this conflict.
Speaker 2: Ever been to Ukraine? Did you say what problems we have?
Speaker 1: I have been to
Speaker 2: The come ones.
Speaker 1: I have actually I've actually watched and seen the stories, and I know what happens is you bring people you bring them on a propaganda tour, mister president. Are do you disagree that you've had problems What? Bringing people into your military?
Speaker 2: We have problems.
Speaker 0: And do
Speaker 1: you think that it's respectful Obalon. To come to the Oval Office Of The United States Of America and attack the administration that is trying to trying to prevent the destruction of your country.
Speaker 0: A lot
Speaker 2: of a lot of questions. Let's start from the beginning. Sure. First of all, during the war, everybody has problems. Even you, but you have nice ocean and don't feel now, but you will feel it in the future.
Speaker 0: God bless. You don't know that.
Speaker 2: God bless. You're not You gotta war.
Speaker 0: Don't tell us what we're gonna feel. We're trying to solve a problem. Don't tell us what we're gonna feel.
Speaker 2: I'm not telling you
Speaker 0: position to dictate that. Remember this. You're no dictating. No position to dictate what we're gonna feel. You will influence.
We're gonna feel very good and very strong.
Speaker 2: You will feel influence.
Speaker 0: You're right now not in a very good position. You've allowed yourself to be in a very bad position and he's happy to be right about it.
Speaker 2: The very beginning of the war
Speaker 0: You're not in a good position.
Speaker 2: I was
Speaker 0: about the cards right now. With us, you start having cards. Right now, you don't you're playing cards. Mister president. You're playing serious.
You're gambling with the lives of millions of people.
Speaker 2: You're thinking
Speaker 0: You're gambling with World War three.
Speaker 2: What's your
Speaker 0: You're gambling with World War three. And what you're doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country that's backed you far more than a lot of people said they should have.
Speaker 1: Have you
Speaker 0: said thank you once in
Speaker 1: the entire meeting? No. In this entire meeting,
Speaker 0: have you said thank today.
Speaker 1: You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October. Offer some words of appreciation for The United States Of America and the president who's trying to save your country. Please, you're saying that if you will speak
Speaker 2: very loudly about the war you
Speaker 0: He's not speaking loudly. He's not speaking loudly. Your country is in big trouble.
Speaker 2: Can I ask No?
Speaker 0: No. You've done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble. I know. You're not winning.
I know. You're not winning this. I You have a damn good chance of coming out okay because of
Speaker 2: Mister president, we are staying in our country, staying strong from the very beginning of the war. We've been alone, and we are thankful.
Speaker 0: I said thanks You have a blowout.
Speaker 2: This cabinet. They're not alone. This cabinet
Speaker 0: We gave you the stupid president three hundred and fifty billion dollars. You won't give me your president. Equipment. You voted for but they had to use our military If you didn't have our military equipment You invited me to our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.
Speaker 2: In three days. I heard it from Putin. In three days. This is something less. In two weeks.
Of course, yes.
Speaker 0: It's gonna be a very hard thing to do business like this. I can
Speaker 1: tell you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: I said a lot of
Speaker 1: times to American people. That there are disagreements, and let's go litigate those disagreements rather than trying to fight it out in the American media when you're wrong. We know that you're wrong.
Speaker 0: But you see, I think it's good for the American people to see what's going on. I understand, sir. I think it's very important. That's why I kept this going so long. You have to be thankful.
You don't have the cards. Thankful. You're buried there. You you people are dying.
Speaker 2: Telling you
Speaker 0: You're running low on soldiers. Listen. Don't place You're running low on soldiers. It would be a damn thing. And then you then you tell us, I don't want a cease fire.
I don't want a cease fire. I wanna go and I wanted this. Look. If you could get a cease fire right now, I'd tell you you'd take it so the bullets stop flying and your men stop getting killed.
Speaker 2: Of course, we want to stop the war.
Speaker 0: You're saying you don't want a ceasefire?
Speaker 2: I said to you
Speaker 0: I want a ceasefire. Guarantees. Because you get a ceasefire faster than any greater.
Speaker 2: Ask our people about ceasefire. What they think?
Speaker 0: That wasn't me. For you. What That wasn't with me. That was with a a guy named Biden who was not a smart person. That was your that was with Obama.
Speaker 2: It was your president.
Speaker 0: Excuse me. That was with Obama who gave you sheets, and I gave you javelins.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: I gave you the javelins to take out all those tanks. Obama gave you sheets. In fact, the statement is Obama gave sheets and Trump gave javelins. You gotta be more thankful because let me tell you, you don't have the cards. With us, you have the cards.
But without us, you don't have any cards. One more question to my mister vice president. I'm sorry. He's Gonna be a tough deal to make because the attitudes have to change. What if Russia breaks his fire?
What if Russia
reSee.it AI Summary
I want to address the belief that the conflict was "unprovoked." In February 2014, I witnessed Senator Chris Murphy, alongside Senator John McCain in Maidan Square, acknowledge the US's significant involvement in the coup that removed President Yanukovych through sanctions and threats.
@ricwe123 - Richard
For anyone still clinging to the fantasy that the conflict was "unprovoked" In February 2014, Senator Chris Murphy, standing shoulder to shoulder with Senator John McCain in Maidan Square, openly admitted that the US had a heavy hand in the 2014 coup that ousted Ukrainian President Yanukovych—using sanctions and threats to get the job done.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I believe our role, including sanctions and threats, partly forced Yanukovych from office. We've been very involved in supporting the new government in Ukraine. The clear US position has aided this regime change. If this is a peaceful transition, the US will be seen as a great friend. This is about supporting Ukraine in determining its future.
While some see this as a US-Russia conflict, it's about supporting Ukraine's wishes. The US has an economic interest too. We're negotiating a trade agreement with Europe. With Ukraine potentially joining the EU, it could mean billions in economic opportunities for the US. We shouldn't hide this interest.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think it was our role, including sanctions and threats of sanctions that forced, in part, Yanukovych from office. Now, the question is what can we do to support this new government? There's gonna be a lot of talk about an assistance package. With respect to Ukraine, we have not sat on the sidelines. We have been very much involved.
Know, members of the senate who have been there, members of the state department who have been on the square, the administration the Obama administration passed sanctions. The Senate was prepared to pass its own set of sanctions. And as I said, I really think that the clear position of The United States has in part been what has helped lead to this change in regimes. So I know that there is merit in the claim that The United States sort of has these principles and then we selectively apply them. We get involved in certain places, then we don't get involved in other places.
But I think if ultimately this is a peaceful transition to new government in Ukraine, it'll be The United States on the streets of Ukraine who will be seen as a great friend in helping make that transition happen. This is really about supporting one of the biggest, most important countries in the Eurasian region, be able to determine for themselves what their future is. And it looks to people like this is The United States and Russia once again fighting, maybe not in military terms, but on economic terms in a country that we both care about. But really, ultimately, I think this is about us supporting the wishes of Ukraine. And, you know, the there is a US interest, here.
We are in the middle of negotiating a new trade agreement with Europe. To my state, it's enormously important. We do 40% of our trade in Connecticut with Europe. If Ukraine is part of the European Union, and thus is part of this new trade agreement with The United States, that could result in billions of dollars in new economic opportunities for The US. So we do have an economic interest in the Ukraine being part of the European Union, and we shouldn't be shy about making clear that interest.
Speaker 1: Isn't it true that Unikovich was elected for the first time in 02/2010 for one five year term, that elections were scheduled for 02/2015? The second point is, why is it okay for foreign ministers from other countries to show up during protest movements? Let's say in Ukraine, like the foreign ministers of Poland and and Germany, and support the protesters against the current government there? Wouldn't it be something similar to the foreign ministers of, let's say, Mexico and Canada showing up during the Occupy Wall Street movement and saying, yes, we agree that your government is corrupt. And the third point is, why isn't the West and America talking about the fact that a large or significant portion of the Ukrainian opposition right now is made up of far right politicians, including from the party Slaborda, which openly is fascist and xenophobic.
And they said that they don't wanna join the EU because they considered the EU to be a bunch of gays and Jews, just as well as they say that they don't wanna join the imperialist Moscow regime.
Speaker 0: Let me me take take all those very quickly one at a time. You're right. Yanukovych was elected, and I mentioned this before. I understand the difficult position here, which is that Yanukovych was elected and we are not in the business of encouraging rebellions and revolutions on the streets against elected leaders because we ultimately think that elections, as you mentioned, are the place in which you should settle your differences. The issue here is that Yanukovych lost his legitimacy to govern when he used force to try to break up these protests.
And The United States didn't go on to that square in any meaningful way, until, the president tried to break up the peaceful protests. That's why Senator McCain and I went. And we certainly got a lot of grief from people asking why two US senators are going to the square to support a protest movement of against an elected government. We did that because we think that there were human rights and civil rights that were violated there, and we've always stood up for that, for that concept. And and again, think that answers your second question as to why you had foreign ministers and foreign leaders who were on that square.
It was because we're standing up for the idea that people should be able to lodge protests against their government. You are right that there is an element of the opposition that has some real radical ideas, and there is an element of anti Semitism, that was present on that square. I will tell you from having been there, if there were 500,000 people there, maybe a couple thousand of them represented that viewpoint. And so by and large, this movement completely rejects those radical and prejudicial ideas, and I have confidence that this new government is going to be inclusive and going to be tolerant. And it will be part of our job, I think, as members of the Foreign Relations Committee to make sure that those kind of more radical elements don't have a seat at the middle of the table as the coalition government goes
@ricwe123 - Richard
Facts are stubborn things. Piers Morgan getting a verbal thrashing from George Galloway..... 💪💪💪 https://t.co/pDXVEUuHvD
Video Transcript AI Summary
I think the idea that Zelensky's fall is somehow Ukraine's fault is a joke. You're going to regret it when Zelensky is sitting on a beach counting his money. This war began in 2014 with a coup against Ukraine's elected president, backed by the US. The criminalization of the Russian language led to an uprising in the east. Zelensky shelled East Ukraine for years before Putin intervened, killing thousands. You support a regime that praises Nazi collaborators.
There's a tiny percentage of neo-Nazis in Ukraine. To call the Jewish leader of Ukraine a Nazi is despicable. You'll be sorry for propping up Putin, who invaded Ukraine to restore the Soviet Union. He's a tyrant, and people like you are useful idiots. Trump is wrong about this. He's right to forge peace. I agree with Trump's plan to get peace, but I don't agree with calling Zelensky a dictator, and I don't agree that it was Ukraine that started the war.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But the idea this is somehow bloody Zelensky's fall and Ukraine's fall is an absolute joke.
Speaker 1: Blimey, that was a long response, Pierce. I hope I'll get as long to respond to your response without you interrupting me. You're going to regret it when very soon Zelensky is sitting in a beachfront villa somewhere counting his ill gotten gains, and all the secrets of the rampant corruption between the democrats and the Zelensky regime begin to tumble out of the cupboard. This war did not begin three years ago. You very well know that it began in 2014.
You very well know that it began with a coup against the elected president of Ukraine backed by Victoria Nuland and the administration at that time and supported by you. You very well know that the criminalization of the Russian language, which followed hard on the heels of that coup, was the proximate reason for an uprising in the East of the country amongst Russian speaking, ethnically Russian people. You very well know that Zelenskyy and his predecessor rained down shot and shell on the people of East Ukraine for eight years before Putin intervened in 2022, and that 14,000 people, most of them women and children were killed in that onslaught. You very well know that Zelensky was preparing for a a final onslaught, a final solution. And while I'm on that subject, you're always telling us how much you love the Jews.
You're supporting a regime which puts up statues to Nazi collaborators, to generals of the Galician division of the SS. You are supporting a
Speaker 0: You know that. Right? Hell, I'm is Jewish. Right? Do
Speaker 1: But that's like saying there's no racism in America because Obama
Speaker 0: So a Jewish Obama. So you're calling the Jewish leader of Ukraine a Nazi. Is that your position?
Speaker 1: No. I'm not.
Speaker 0: But the
Speaker 1: regime is you know very well that all over Ukraine, the the statues and the heroization of Bandera and the SS in Galicia and the mass murderers of Jews, including our Babi Yar. There are
Speaker 0: a tiny there are proportion no. I'm gonna respond to that. There are proportionately as you know, to quote you, I'll start this by saying, as you know, as you know, there is a tiny percentage of people in Ukraine who are neo Nazis as there are, by the way, in many of the neighboring countries there. Who's putting up these statues? In Russia.
Right? And they are not
Speaker 1: Who's putting up these
Speaker 0: statues? They are not Who's categorizing? They are not.
Speaker 1: These people.
Speaker 0: They are not. They're calling libraries after all. They're calling
Speaker 1: university wings after all.
Speaker 0: Let me finish. They are they are not Banderas. Let me finish.
Speaker 1: In Kyiv.
Speaker 0: Let me finish. There are not a significant number of people. And for you to call the Jewish leader of Ukraine somebody who is leading a regime propping up Nazis is despicable. Despicable.
Speaker 1: That's I've already said to you. That's like saying there's no racism in America because Obama was briefly the president of the country. The entire Western part of Ukraine played a decisive role in the mass murder of Jews and Poles and others in the second World War. And now they are heroizing the heroes of the SS and the other collaborating
Speaker 0: A tiny number of people do that as you well know. Of the Tiny number
Speaker 1: these things become clear.
Speaker 0: Let me ask you. Why do you support? Why do you support? Okay. Let me ask you why When Mobinsky is Why do you support?
Why do you support Counting his money. Finish.
Speaker 1: You're going to be sorry Fine. For all the heroization of him.
Speaker 0: You know what, George? Have done. You know what, George? You might be also sorry for propping up a despicable Russian dictator who illegally invaded a sovereign democratic European country. You might look at yourself in the mirror in a few years when he carries on Putin invading other countries, which he will, because it was never about Russian speakers in Ukraine.
This was all about trying to restore the Soviet Union. He's a despicable tyrant who will prove people like you to be useful idiots in this Why
Speaker 1: doesn't why doesn't Donald Trump agree with you?
Speaker 0: Because he's wrong.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, you have been up his ass all of these two decades. You've kissed his feet.
Speaker 0: Really?
Speaker 1: You've licked his boots. You've fawned upon him.
Speaker 0: Really?
Speaker 1: You have been his super fan, and now on this fundamental question of our age is entirely wrong?
Speaker 0: Well, no. It's wrong to forge it's wrong to call Zelensky a dictator, make out he's the perpetrator of the war. Yes. He's right to forge peace.
Speaker 1: That NATO
Speaker 0: He's right to join him. And by the way Which you have to support. By the way, I hammered Trump so much over things like the COVID pandemic, January sixth, storm election. He didn't talk to me for six months. So this idea I'm always sucking up to him is complete lies again.
Complete lies.
Speaker 1: Everybody watching knows you are Trump's biggest ass
Speaker 0: I like him. I like watching like Donald Trump. I know
Speaker 1: you like him.
Speaker 0: I like him.
Speaker 1: I like him.
Speaker 0: And on many things on many things, I I like him and on many things mental question. Finish.
Speaker 1: The biggest question Yeah. In in politics in the world today, he's got it completely wrong.
Speaker 0: No. You didn't hear me. Why didn't you listen to what I said?
Speaker 1: What do you mean I didn't hear you?
Speaker 0: I've literally said to you on his plan to get peace, I agree with him. I don't agree with him about calling Zelensky a dictator, and I don't agree that it was Ukraine that started the war. You do because you're Putin's little hicks metal.
Speaker 1: Ukraine was the most corrupt country Well, more
Speaker 0: corrupt than Russia.
Speaker 1: Being Russia. Was designated by the economy
Speaker 0: What about Putin?
Speaker 1: By the Feet.
Speaker 0: What about Putin? By everyone who knows about Putin. Tell me about Putin.
Speaker 1: Listen.
Speaker 0: Joe Biden is George?
Speaker 1: The Biden family George,
Speaker 0: what is Vladimir Putin?
Speaker 1: Will turn out to be
Speaker 0: What is Vladimir Putin?
Speaker 1: Parrot stop parroting these things.
Speaker 0: What is Vladimir Putin?
Speaker 1: Regret it. It is Zelensky
Speaker 0: Tell me about Putin.
Speaker 1: Predecessor. You can't
Speaker 0: do it. Can you? Joe Biden You cannot Barack Obama You will not criticize Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1: Or daughter, whoever they are now
Speaker 0: You won't criticize Vladimir Putin, will you?
Speaker 1: American oligarchs.
Speaker 0: You won't criticize Vladimir Putin. Look at you. How pathetic.
Speaker 1: The corruption in Ukraine.
Speaker 0: But no corruption in Russia.
Speaker 1: All about it soon.
Speaker 0: No corruption in Russia.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what. Your mate, Donald Trump, is going to open every book, every drawer, every filing cabinet, and you're going to be embarrassed.
Speaker 0: Okay.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Remember the leaked call between Nuland and Pyatt, where the US was caught red-handed scheming to orchestrate a coup and hand-pick Kyiv’s new puppet government? This just two weeks before Washington shamelessly aided in toppling Yanukovych, the president chosen by the people... https://t.co/xeHuLEqvHd
Video Transcript AI Summary
Here is a concise transcript of the video:
**Speaker 0:** Klitschko's situation is complicated, especially with his new deputy prime minister role. I think Yatseniuk is the right person with economic and governing experience, and he needs Klitschko and Tani Book on the outside, advising him. Klitschko working under Yatseniuk won't work.
**Speaker 1:** Let's set up a call with Klitschko. Reaching out to him directly helps manage the personalities involved and allows us to move quickly.
**Speaker 0:** Jeff Feltman mentioned Robert Seri as the new UN guy who could come in to help.
**Speaker 1:** We need to make this stick, especially with potential Russian interference. Let me work on Klitschko, and we need someone with an international presence to help. We can regroup on outreach to Yanukovych tomorrow.
**Speaker 0:** Sullivan says Biden is willing to give an "attaboy" tomorrow to help things stick.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What do you think?
Speaker 1: I think we're in play. The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here, especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister. And and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now, so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call we wanna set up, is exactly the one you made to to Yat. And I I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario, and I'm very glad he said what he said in response.
Speaker 0: Good. So, I don't think cleats should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's a good idea.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I I guess you think what in terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we wanna keep the moderate Democrats together. The problem is gonna be Tony Boak and his guys. And, you know, I'm sure that's part of what Yanaco, which is calculating on all of this.
I kinda
Speaker 0: I just I think Yatz is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's he's the guy you know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tani Book on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week. I just think Klitsch going in, he's going to be at that level working for Yadsden Yuk. It's just not going to work.
Speaker 1: Yes. No, I think Okay. Good. Well, do want us to try to set up a call with him as the next step?
Speaker 0: My understanding from that call, but you tell me, was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yatz was gonna offer in that context a three way you know, the three plus one conversation or three plus two with you. Is that not how you understood it?
Speaker 1: No. I think I mean, that's what he proposed. But I think just knowing the dynamic that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog. He's gonna take a while to show up for whatever meeting they've got, and he's probably talking to his guys at this point. So I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three, and it and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn't like it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before after?
Speaker 1: Okay. Will do. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Okay. I've now written oh, one more wrinkle for you, Jeff.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I can't remember if I told you this or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy, Robert Seri. Did I write you that this morning?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I saw that.
Speaker 0: He's now gotten both Seri and Ban Ki moon to agree that Seri could come in Monday or Tuesday.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it and, you know, fuck the EU.
Speaker 1: No. Exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does if it does start to gain altitude, the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And, again, the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych did that. But in the meantime, there's a party of regions faction meeting going on right now, and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point.
But, anyway, we could, we could land jelly set up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on let me work on Klitschko, and if you can just keep I I think we wanna try to get somebody with an international personality to, come out here and help to midwife this thing. And then the other the other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych, but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Speaker 0: So on that piece, Jeff, when I wrote the note, Sullivan's come back to me, VFR, saying you need Biden. And I said probably tomorrow for an attaboy and get the deets to stick. So Biden's willing.
Speaker 1: Okay. Great. Thanks.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Vladimir Putin's iron-fisted leadership dragged Russia out of the ruins of a failed state and thrust it back onto the world stage as a global power. He seized control, crushed opposition and confronted challenges without hesitation. Like him or not, his influence is impossible to ignore.... 💪💪
Video Transcript AI Summary
Why weren't there people here before capable of making decisions? Why did everyone scatter like cockroaches when I arrived? I believe you've held thousands of people hostage due to your ambitions, unprofessionalism, or perhaps simply greed. This is completely unacceptable!
If the owners can't agree, the complex will still be restored in one form or another, but it will be done without you. You signed this agreement, yes? Did Oleg Borisovich sign? I don't see it. Sign it. Write.
Go.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Почему раньше здесь не было людей, которые способны были принимать решения? Почему здесь то забегали все как тараканы при самом моим приезде? Считаю, что вы сделали заложниками своих амбиций, непрофессионализма, а может быть просто и тривиальной жадности. Тысячи людей! Это абсолютно недопустимо!
Если собственники договориться между собой не смогут, то единый комплекс все равно будет восстановлен в том или в другом виде, то это будет сделано без вас. Вы подписали этот договор, да? А Олег Борисович подписал? Ничего не вижу, вы же подписитесь. Пишите.
Идите.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Tucker Carlson interviewing Jeffrey Sachs..... https://t.co/mdYIr1j3xl
Video Transcript AI Summary
I met Prime Minister Orban 36 years ago and saw his vision for a new Hungary. The Ukraine war stems from the US's 1994 NATO expansion project, despite promises to Gorbachev. This was a deep state project that every president after Clinton was a part of.
Yesterday was historic because Trump and Putin spoke, and the new defense secretary admitted Ukraine won't join NATO. This is the basis for peace. For 30 years, America has been playing a game of risk, seeking world hegemony. Marco Rubio acknowledged a multipolar world.
The US must stop attacking others and respect other countries. With mutual respect, we can achieve a golden age, investing in technology instead of war.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to, introduce someone who I consider one of the smartest people I know and whose understanding of the world is matched only by his ability to synthesize huge themes, and illustrate them with precise detail, someone who's traveled the world for forty years, a man who not only writes about leaders of the world but knows them personally, professor Jeffrey Sachs.
Speaker 1: Thanks. Alright. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Jeff. Thank you. So how long I just you were telling me backstage, I didn't realize this, for for those who enjoyed prime minister Orbanet. I'm one of them. I was tell us when you first met the prime minister.
Speaker 1: We met, forty six years ago. Thirty six years ago. 1989.
Speaker 0: He was just getting out of jail at that point.
Speaker 1: No. Yeah. They were just opening up, and, this young guy was starting a political party. And he gave me a call, and, we sat in our my backyard in, in Boston for a few hours. And I thought, okay.
This guy's gonna be prime minister for most of the next, thirty six years. It's very, very impressive then, and it's very impressive now.
Speaker 0: So you said that. You saw in him and it's not just about him, but it's about what are the markers of enduring leadership, what makes, you know, this politician impressive while most of them are not impressive. What did you see in him? What do you see in leaders like him who have been successful?
Speaker 1: This was 1989. It was even before the Berlin Wall Fell, but Hungary had cut the barbed wire. So people were that was the beginning of the end in 1989 of the Soviet domination of of Eastern Europe. And, this young guy said, I'm gonna make a political party, and I'm gonna be a leader, and I'm gonna make a new Hungary. And, what he showed was vision that, look, we're a great country.
We've been held back for the last forty five years. I'm gonna help lead the way. And it was a, Fidesz, young democrats, I think was the translation of it, and he just had the idea. We're we're gonna move forward. He was a kid, and, we were all kids then.
And, you could see that there was energy, vision, foresight, and and it proved right.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And a toughness. So you heard his analysis, I think, of where we are, with the war in Ukraine election of Trump on the basis in part of, you know, his promise to to try to end this if he can. You saw the new secretary of defense say, no. We're not gonna support Ukraine's entry into NATO.
Where are we now?
Speaker 1: You know, yesterday was the most, important day for peace in maybe decades, actually. This war in Ukraine resulted from a very bad idea of The United States taken in 1994. It's a project. The project, was a project to expand NATO forever anywhere. Just keep moving east.
Keep moving not only to the first wave, which was the prime minister's country Hungary, Czech Republic, and Slovakia, but then move eastward closer to the former Soviet Union, into the former Soviet Union, surround Russia in the Black Sea region, go all the way to a little country in the South Caucasus, Georgia. It was mind boggling. Clinton signed on to that in 1994. It became what we call the deep state project, meaning it didn't really matter who the president was. Each president would come and basically would be informed.
NATO's moving eastward. You're part of that process. So Clinton started it in 1994. And as prime minister Orban said, he mentioned briefly, in 1990, on 02/09/1990, in unequivocal, clear as can be terms, The United States had said to president Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch eastward. And if you have any doubt about it, all the documents are now online, available.
You can scrutinize everything. Hans Dietrich Genscher, the US the German foreign minister said the same thing, same day. He's on tape actually explaining, no. No. I don't just mean within Eastern Germany.
I mean anywhere to the East. Clinton, being Clinton, and the US deep state being the US deep state started this project in 1994. They already had the idea by the way in in 1991, '90 '2 as soon as the Soviet Union ended. Now we move. Now we move eastward.
Now we control everything. Now we are the sole superpower. So this has gone on for thirty years and each president got into it under George Bush Junior, seven more countries were added, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania Nine in 02/2004. Then in 02/2007, president Putin said at the summit that's taking place right now, the Munich Security Summit, said stop. You told us no expansion, not an eastward expansion, even an inch, you said.
You've now done 10 countries. Stop. Perfectly reasonable. Stop. I don't think our president Donald Trump would much like to see China and Russia building their military bases up from Central America.
You know, this was how the Russians saw this. Why are you coming to our border when you told us you weren't gonna move? And there was one other thing that was very important in this, which is probably the most decisive thing and almost not even recognized. In 02/2002, the US did something really, really, really destabilizing, and that is it unilaterally left the anti ballistic missile treaty. That was a core strategy to stop a nuclear war between the two superpowers because what ABM had done for thirty years was to say, we each have deterrence.
You if you strike us, we can strike back. We'll limit our anti ballistic missiles so that both sides maintain deterrence. In 02/2002, the United States unilaterally, unprovoked, walked out of the ABM, said, no. No. We're not gonna do it anymore.
We're going to put anti ballistic missile systems into Russia's bordering territories. The Russians said, are you kidding? The US said, what's your problem? We do what we want. So in 02/2007, Putin stopped already.
In 02/2008, George Bush junior doubled down as Americans typically do and said, okay. Now we're moving to Ukraine and to Georgia. That was, why this war occurred. But Ukraine had one more sliver of, of life, and that was that they elected a president in 02/2010 that didn't want to be part of NATO, and the public didn't wanna be part of NATO. Why?
Because they knew this is very dangerous. Why get into this provocative situation? His name was Viktor Yanukovych. Americans don't like neutrality, but Yanukovych was trying to be neutral between the two sides. And The US played a rather unfortunate role on 02/22/2014 in a violent overthrow of this person.
And, that's when the war started. And it's been now ten years, and no president has, told the truth until yesterday, by the way. Yesterday is a historic day because the a call took place between president Putin and president Trump. It was the first call. We don't know if there had been a short call beforehand between the two of them, but there was no call by Biden and Putin.
With war going on for three years, no call. And now there was a call, and the readout from the American side was excellent. What president Trump said in the call was we respect Russia. We hear Russia's concerns. We fought on the same side in World War two.
Nice point, by the way. True. Russia lost Soviet Union lost 27,000,000 people in World War two and was an ally of The United States. A fact that wasn't mentioned for years and years and years by president Biden. And then the defense secretary head set the new defense secretary said yesterday the truth for the first time that Ukraine is not going to join NATO.
This is the basis for peace. This is absolutely the basis for peace, and they couldn't tell the truth for three decades. They could not admit what any of us knew because I've been around this region for thirty six years in detail. I sat with Boris Yeltsin. I sat with Mikhail Gorbachev.
But the Americans would not tell the truth publicly until yesterday that this was so provocative. It was a game. They thought they'd win the game. I don't know how many people here play or played in their childhood the game of risk. The game of risk was a big game for me.
You wanted your piece on every part of the world map. That was the game when you took over the whole world, world hegemony we now call it. You won. They're playing that game until this administration. So the two most import three important things have happened in my view in this administration so far.
First, our new secretary of state Marco Rubio told the fundamental truth. We are in a multipolar world. First time the sentence was uttered. He told the truth. What does it mean?
The American mindset for thirty years was we run the show. Marco Rubio said, well, we don't run the show. We live with other powerful countries. Great start. Second and third were the two events yesterday.
So I'm feeling about peace that this is really something that happened yesterday. If if they follow through, we know what Washington is like. There is every crazy idea swarming still. A project of thirty years doesn't go down and so visibly. And, of course, Europe is in a and so visibly.
And, of course, Europe is in a tizzy because Europe signed on to The US project. All these politicians in Europe are there where they are because they were part of The US project. And now The US is reversing its project, and you didn't tell us and you didn't what are we supposed to do? We're way out there. And so they're completely befuddled.
And I have to say, I told them personally, many of these leaders, and I mean personally, one by one for years, you are gonna get trapped this way because this project doesn't work. It doesn't make sense. It's a game for the Americans, but it's life and death for the Russians. So it cannot be won by the American side. It's impossible.
And I tried to tell them, and nobody in Europe either had the clarity or the guts to see it except the person that preceded me in this seat, prime minister Orban, because he was completely clear about this from the first day. Now others are starting, but even till today, the Europeans can't get it because they're so deeply invested in something that makes no sense. They should have said, Russia's big. It lives near near us. Let's cooperate.
That's how you do it.
Speaker 0: Your online activity is being watched and not just certain things you search on your private browser. Everything is being watched. Shady big tech companies are constantly hawking your information because their profits depend on it. They get rich by invading your privacy then selling your data to anybody who's willing to pay for it. It's scary, and people need a way to escape from its grasp, and that's where ExpressVPN comes in.
With ExpressVPN, 100% of your online activity is rerouted through secure encrypted servers, making it impossible for data brokers to see what you do online or buy and sell that information. Now, unfortunately, we live in a world where companies will do anything to invade your privacy, and they're doing it right now. ExpressVPN is a way to shield what is sacred to you from rapacious data brokers. Right now, you get an extra four months for free when you use this show's special link. Go to expressvpn.com/ducker.
We recommend it. I think one of the reasons we wound up in this position, we meaning The United States, but also Europe, is there's a habit of speech which reflects a habit of mind, which is an unwillingness to engage with ideas and instead resort immediately to attacking the other person on the basis of motive. And you saw this with Orban. You're a Russian stooge or whatever and was especially hilarious as he explained. No.
It's the opposite of a Russian stooge. Of course. Lifelong. His country was occupied by the Russians. But you do see it also in The United States, and it
Speaker 1: makes it kind of impossible to have a rational conversation
Speaker 0: about any I know you've been the the butt of this too, not whining about it, but it's like Yeah. Is there even a culture in our foreign policy establishment of having rational conversations
Speaker 1: to the point where we
Speaker 0: can solve problems like this?
Speaker 1: You know, we've talked about, I think, an uncle of yours, who's, one of my favorite politicians of American history, j William Fulbright. And, he wrote a book in the nineteen sixties called the arrogance of power. And I was a a kid then, and I read that book like it was the coolest thing imaginable. This was the chairman of the US foreign relations committee saying, we're too arrogant to think clearly. That was amazing.
He was an amazing person. Now I think that's the fundamental problem. I'm not sure we're properly over it, but I have to say that, in nineteen ninety, ninety one, we had the chance for global peace, really for global peace. That doomsday clock of the atomic scientist which I like to refer to so much, which measures how close or far are we from nuclear war, was the farthest away it was ever in its history because the cold war had ended. So I was there as a as a young economist who actually knew something about economic stabilization, and I made proposals.
And, interestingly, just as a footnote, I advised the Polish government in 1989. I just long story, but suddenly as a kid, I happened to be there, and I helped write their plan. And I, everything I recommended for Poland was immediately accepted by the White House. It's a very odd thing. In fact, I went one day, I had an idea of mobilizing some finance to help Poland stabilize, and I called the Polish finance minister, said, do you mind if I try to raise a billion dollars for you today, which was a lot of money in in those days.
And said, if you raise a billion dollars, that would be great. So I called Bob Dole, our senate majority leader, whom I knew because of the Poland, work that I was doing, and he invited me immediately into his office. And he said, come back in an hour. So I came back in an hour. This was, September 1989.
And who was sitting there? General Brent Scowcroft. Oh, okay. He was the general who was our national security adviser. I was a kid.
So it was a little bit interesting moment. And he senator Dole said to me, explain to general Scowcroft your idea. So I handed him the paper, and this is how you do financial stabilization, and here's how you stabilize the currency. And Scowcroft looked at it and said, well, will this work? And I said, general, this will work.
And, Dole led me out of the office and said call me back, later in the day. So at 5PM, I called, and Dole said the White House has called. You have tell your friends you have the 1,000,000,000. So I raised a billion dollars that day. It was good.
So no. No. That nothing to do with me, because, it was the right idea. The Polish stabilized. I did a good I did a good thing.
I was a technically, equipped, sophisticated manager of a financial stabilization or not manager, but advisor on the financial stabilization. Okay. Then in 1991, I recommended the same thing for Gorbachev and for this creaking, collapsing, Soviet Union. Gorbachev wanted to have elections in all of the republics, and he wanted to democratize and stabilize. So okay.
I know something about that, mister president. And so we met, in, the Harvard Kennedy School, and, there were, one, two, three, four, five of us, a little team. One of them was the chief economic advisor of Gorbachev, Grigor Yablinski. One was the dean of the Kennedy School. One became a very senior diplomat, Bob Blackwell, that I deal with.
One was a very senior economist at, MIT, Stanley Fisher. We wrote a plan for how, the Soviet Union could stabilize, and I did the chapter on the financing. Basically, the same thing that I had said for Poland. Okay. It was completely rejected within about twelve hours in Washington.
Okay. I hated this for the next thirty years, I have to tell you, because we just could not take yes for an answer. Couple of months ago, someone sent me from the archives, the first time that I'd ever seen it, the National Security Council minutes rejecting the proposal. Fascinating to read because that's your life before your eyes watching this. There was a guy named Dick Darman who was a former colleague of mine.
The technical term, I don't I don't think I can say it in mixed company, actually. So I I I won't say what I would say about him.
Speaker 0: But it's an unpleasant English word.
Speaker 1: It's really nasty. Too nasty for polite company. He says in this thing, we should do the minimum necessary so that there's not a collapse, but nothing more. And, he quotes Machiavelli and, you know, we're not interested and we're not gonna do this. And it's it's really watching stupid people taking important stupid decisions.
Fools. By the way, they never called to say, can we discuss stabilization? This guy knew nothing. They don't understand anything. They don't care.
So what were they doing? They actually reached a conclusion at the end of the meeting. We're gonna do the minimum possible. I mean, minimum, minimum. It's not our business to help.
We're not gonna do any of that. That's arrogance of power. We don't have to do anything. Why? We're The United States.
We don't have to do anything. They didn't even look. The stakes for the world were very high. You could have a thirty minute phone call to understand financial stabilization. You could say in history, when countries are destabilized this way, here's how stability has worked.
That was my specialty. That's what I knew and taught at Harvard and knew knew a lot about. But they're so arrogant that it's not even to discuss for a half an hour any of this, and they didn't, and they took a terrible decision. And by the way, my point is not that that led on to this and this and this. No.
They took terrible decisions for the next thirty five years. This could have been stopped at any moment. Not one thing led to the next thing. No. One stupid decision, then the next one, then the next one, then the next one.
You have to learn to behave. The way you behave in this world is mutual respect. The way you behave is thinking you're not gonna be more secure if they're completely destabilized. That's what you have to understand. And that is not so hard to understand.
We teach it to our kids. At age four, we start teaching that. And then suddenly, if you want your passport to Washington, you have to forget it at age 40 or something. And that's how they behave. So that's my feeling about this, that it's just a kind of arrogance.
And you can see it in this writing which I find fascinating to go back and watch this tragedy unfold. Nineteen ninety seven, another wonderful moment if you wanna just watch hubris and tragedy. Very good book, good in that it's insightful, terrible book in that it's all wrong by Zvi Brzezinski. And many of you have probably read it called the Grand Chess Board, and he could have called it the game of risk. It would have been a little bit more accurate, but it was about how to make American dominance in the world.
And he has a chapter about expanding NATO to Ukraine. Exactly that. He's and he talks about Europe and NATO expanding eastward. And the question that he asked in 1997 is, what can the Russians do about it? Because they're weak.
And he answers meticulously. He considers, would Russia ever ally with China? Impossible.
Speaker 0: He can That'll that'll never happen.
Speaker 1: That'll never happen. Could Russia ever ally with Iran? No. Impossible. That will never happen.
So you watch like we watch now the Chat GPT thinking out loud. It's all there. It's all wrong, and it was all American policy for the next twenty five years. That's tragedy.
Speaker 0: May may I ask a question, though? Like, a kind of thematic fundamental question. So, great empire, one of it you know, empires tend to be arrogant. I think that's a feature of empires.
Speaker 1: That is it.
Speaker 0: But a an enduring empire shows stability. Its goal is stability. Because it understands exactly what you said I thought so nicely. It doesn't help you if your neighbors are in chaos. It doesn't it doesn't help you.
It's against your own interest. So that's such an obvious insight. The Roman Empire was based on it. The British Empire was based on it. Ours is the only empire I'm aware of that has kind of intentionally sowed chaos, and and I don't understand where that thinking comes from.
Leaving aside, the moral question is, is that right or wrong? It doesn't work for you. So why have we done it?
Speaker 1: You know, the Roman Empire is always a great story for us, and I compare the Ukraine war to the battle of the Teuttenberg forest, which is AD nine. Yep. And in AD nine, the Roman Empire reached its limits, on the Rhine. It never it tried to conquer the Germanic tribes, in September. They were defeated under Augustus.
And there were sporadic border things from then on, but they never tried again. They had hundreds of years where that just was wasn't their business. It was very, very smart. Hadrian, in the first, second century AD was the emperor at the maximum extent of the Roman Empire, and he basically wanted stability across the the the border lines. And this was the prudence of the empire.
It wasn't Alexander, you know, was very different three, four hundred years earlier. He wanted to conquer the whole world. There was no limit. Finally, his soldiers told him, if you go any further, we're killing you. We we've got to go home because they were already at the beyond the Indus River.
But the Romans said no. We're gonna put some boundaries, we're gonna keep the borders, and we're gonna not go beyond our means or our needs. I hope what happened yesterday was a a good example of that. What Trump and, Hegseth did yesterday, if they follow through, if the deep state doesn't undermine it, if it's some crazy thing doesn't happen, said, we don't need to be in Ukraine with NATO. We don't need to be.
It's for us, it's nothing. And it doesn't mean that Russia's now gonna invade Western Europe. That's crazy. This was a project going the other direction. So it's basic prudence, and that's what a great power should show, prudence.
Speaker 0: What are the chances that some you said unless the deep state doesn't make some crazy thing happens. I would note that for a good part of the presidential campaign, the deep state was telling the candidate Donald Trump that the state of Iran is trying to kill you, which as far as I know was totally untrue, by the way. But they were telling him that in order to prepare him to attack Iran, which they're still trying to do. So we know that this kind of deception is just a feature of it. How hard will people invested in the Ukraine war go?
Yeah. What to what lengths will they go to continue this, do you think?
Speaker 1: First of all, the the main job of The US President, of a of a successful US President, is to put the foot on the brake. This is if you look in history, the good presidents know when to stop. Eisenhower was such. Kennedy was such. Reagan understood this, and all our recent presidents did not up until now, basically.
Speaker 0: Well, troop Truman in Korea, George H W Bush in Kuwait. I mean, also true.
Speaker 1: No. That they fought too many wars in my Yeah.
Speaker 0: But they but they did stop.
Speaker 1: And No. But they stopped, but they, made too much Iraq Two Thousand Three. I mean, there were just too many too many wars. So the question is, can we learn, and can the president keep the foot on the brake? If he does, he will have a extremely successful administration.
He, I think, understands that all of Netanyahu's pleading and this has been thirty years also, this another project to go for The US to go to war with Iran is just the worst idea imaginable, would be a disaster. And so I think president Trump understands that. I think he understands that a war with China would be a complete disaster, which it would be, though there's a lot of war parties around on that. The funny thing about our time right now, not funny, the the the wonderful thing about our time right now is that we're in the midst of the biggest technological boom in the history of the world. So so many good things could happen in the next ten to twenty years.
President Trump has used the expression which I fully subscribe to, a golden age. We could have it. A golden age is not war. A golden age is investing in all this wonderful technology so that we can have health care that works, education systems that work, infrastructure that works. It would be nice if The United States even had one kilometer of fast rail, just saying.
China just completed its fifty thousandth kilometer of fast rail. We we don't have one. I can't even take the train reliably from, New York to actually from Washington to New York. Last time it took the Accela, it broke down in the middle, and I I had to change to a local in New Jersey, which does not happen between Shanghai and Beijing, by the way. Just saying.
Speaker 0: But you missed the countryside. I mean, that is part of it, though.
Speaker 1: That's it.
Speaker 0: Not a lot of incentive to stop in New Jersey, and now they're giving you one.
Speaker 1: There I was. I felt so privileged. Right. And there was the local right on the next Exactly. Exactly.
Waiting for us.
Speaker 0: And you wouldn't have been in Passaic otherwise. So Exactly. Lucky you.
Speaker 1: You count your blessings. Right?
Speaker 0: So the whole point of market capitalism is consumer choice. You have a choice between products and services, and the competition between companies makes the goods and services better. That's the core idea. Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of monopolies out there. Monopolies are not good for consumers.
They are not good for you. And one of the places where there's effectively a monopoly is in wireless contracts, but it's not a complete monopoly. You're probably paying way too much to use your cell phone, but now you have a choice. You don't have to pay a hundred bucks a month just to get a free phone. That's not a good deal.
There's a company called PureTalk, which we use, that has no inflated prices. With a qualifying plan of just $45 a month, you can choose a free phone, an iPhone 14 or a Samsung Gallery, then you get unlimited talk, tax 25 gigs of data, which is enough for most people, a mobile hotspot, all for that low price, and it's got the most dependable five g network. So you get your free iPhone 14 or Samsung Galaxy by visiting puretalk.com/tucker, and you switch to Pure Talk today. America's wireless company, Pure Talk. It does feel I'm glad that you are saying this because it does feel like we're not even a month into the Trump administration.
I don't think anybody agrees with, you know, everything of anyone else's program, but, clearly, this is a massive departure from what we had, much more than I thought. I feel like I'm I watch pretty closely. I'm amazed by the ambition of what they're doing, and it does feel like the only way to stop this. Tulsi Gabbard just confirmed yesterday as the director of
Speaker 1: National Intelligence. Very big deal. It's unbelievable. It's a very big deal.
Speaker 0: Tulsi Gabbard's right in the president's daily brief. Tulsi Gabbard is in charge of a lot of declassification efforts. Like, the whole thing is unbelievable. The only way to stop this is with a war. I mean, that's my kind of simple reading of it.
Do you agree with that?
Speaker 1: I think that is exactly entirely the point. And if, and we had news today, please, inshallah, that, the ceasefire will continue on Saturday because more hostages will be released, more exchanges will take place, and there won't be a return. Really, If it happens and an outbreak of war is stopped, because it has to be stopped, this will be such a blessing, not only for this region, but I have to say for our country too, The United States.
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 1: And so this is really the key moment, and I think Trump's instincts are there. And what he says, we didn't even hear Biden or other presidents say, president Trump said many times about Ukraine, too many people are dying. You didn't even hear those words. I mean, the idea that war involve by the way, maybe a million Ukrainians dead or seriously wounded. We're gonna find out in the next months because finally we'll see what reality is, not what the propaganda is, but it's horrible what's happened.
So that instinct is essential, and there are several places where everything could be derailed. This region is one of them. Ukraine is another. South China and East China Sea is is the third. And if the president gets it and has the basic idea we live together in respect with other countries, the golden age will come.
Speaker 0: I I think and I'd love your view of this. I think of all the amazing things I've seen in the last three and a half weeks, maybe the most amazing is the emergence of Steve Witkoff, who I I just I will say I know personally and and like enormously, but he was a real estate guy. K? All of a sudden, Trump appoints him an envoy sort of over and above massive stable diplomats. We have professional diplomats at the state department to go do, you know, effective ceasefire here in this region and then sends him over to Russia, and he winds up meeting Yeah.
With Putin apparently for several hours. And then all this stuff happens. You've been around diplomats your entire life. You've functioned as a diplomat. What do you think of
Speaker 1: that? Look. He did the single coolest thing since this administration started, I I have to say, which was, Trump made this cease fire. There's no question about it. Biden would never I mean, he didn't make the ceasefire because we don't know where Biden was mentally anyway, but his team was completely incompetent.
Horrible. I'm sorry to say it. It's very terrible.
Speaker 0: A lot of the rest of us did notice that.
Speaker 1: Yes. It it wasn't a completely it wasn't a completely closely held secret, let's say. So Trump said, we gotta have a ceasefire before my inauguration. And he sent Witkoff. And, Witkoff said to Netanyahu, I'm coming to meet you tomorrow.
And Netanyahu said, no. No. No. Tomorrow is Saturday. I can't meet you.
And Witkoff said, I'll be in your office tomorrow at one, and, told him, I don't care anything. I'm there. We're gonna have a a discussion. And out of that meeting came the ceasefire. Now the ceasefire looks maybe like it will hold this weekend.
Believe me, in Israel, they want war everywhere for a lot of reasons. But the president's job from my point of view of American interest and the world interest and this region's interest, everybody's interest. No more war. Stop this now. So if Witkoff can keep that track record, that would be the heroic success.
Speaker 0: But what does it tell you that Steve Witkoff, who I will say, again, I'm biased because I really like him, he's got a great personality, super energetic, very straightforward, believable, but zero training in any of this. Like, not he's a real estate guy. And he pulls this off? Like, what does that tell you about our professional diplomatic corps?
Speaker 1: I'll tell you one thing it it tells you. Trump can make peace if he wants to make peace. I mean, he needs he needs a capable guy that can go and read the riot act and say this is no joke, and we're gonna have it. And that is basically what good diplomacy is. And again, in The US system, of course, we've got the deep state who tell presidents what to do.
We've got lobbies. We've got all all sorts of things, but a president's true job is to lead. And if you don't have a president compasementus, like I think we didn't have in The United States, you get war breaking out everywhere like we had, in the last two years. Or if you have a president that is poorly directed or poorly, you know, really doesn't get it. And Clinton was an inconsequential president in my opinion because he is so easily swayed.
He lets he he just made so many lousy decisions. George Bush Junior listened to Cheney who was really a nonstop warmonger and so on. If a president gets the idea, I want peace because this war is really destructive of everything else I'm trying to do, then you can have peace, actually. It's possible. No one is gonna attack The United States, so peace depends on us.
No one is attacking us. China is not about to invade The United States. Russia's not gonna attack The United States. Mexico and Canada are not gonna attack The United States. Panama's not gonna attack The United States.
Greenland's not gonna attack The
Speaker 0: United States. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to make I don't wanna go the whole list, but I'm just confident about this. So if the president wants peace, he'll get it. If he gets peace, believe me, he'll get all the other things that he wants, like low inflation, being able to pass the budget that he wants, getting his tax policies that he wants. But if there's war, he ain't gonna get any of it. That's the basic point.
And, you know, I voted democratic in '9 in, 2020. I voted for Biden. And Biden I've had a lot of experience with governments over the last forty five years, so I watched them, and I I think I understand a lot of of them. And Biden, in the first days, said stupid things about foreign policy. The world is divided between this and this and blah blah blah.
And he's saying, oh my god. What is the guy is doesn't get it. And in fact, he didn't get it at all, and I told many democratic leaders when they still talk to me. Now if they don't talk to me and I don't talk to them, You're gonna you're gonna do something completely almost impossible in American politics, which is you're gonna lose on the basis of foreign policy because Americans don't vote on foreign policy. And I said, your foreign policy is so bad.
This is gonna bring you down. And in fact, the democrats lost their heads in this, and they were so intent on defeating Trump that no matter what Biden said, well, we have to back him up a % as he led them off to war and complicity in the war here and the Ukraine war and tensions with China and all the rest. And they created a milieu of so much unhappiness in The United States, Anxiety, higher inflation, big budget deficits, that the public said, no. We don't like this. This is so they did really the impossible.
Speaker 0: But they brought Liz Cheney over to the coalition.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. And then what's ironic is, you know, this wonderful person who was confirmed yesterday for, the, head of director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who's really smart by the way, very honest, very meticulous. I know her extremely well over many, many years. Totally up and up, so I'm delighted she's gonna be briefing the president each day.
I couldn't think of a better person. All the democrats voted against her. This is crazy. She was their colleague for decades. She stood up for things that they should be applauding her for.
Every one of them voted against her.
Speaker 0: She was the vice chairman of the DNC Exactly. Seven eight years ago.
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 0: So, I guess the question is the opposition you've alluded to the deep state, but there's also the out in the open state. You know, the the congress, for example, the other party, the Democratic Party, does Trump's success, not just in the election, winning the popular vote, but in affecting peace, which is actually popular with people, does that change their views on foreign policy? Like, does he bring people with him, or does he stand alone between the two parties as he did in the first time?
Speaker 1: Look. This is very early days because we're just a little over three weeks into this. But if yesterday turns into policy, which it could, and the Ukraine war ends soon, which it could, You're gonna see everybody changing their views. Oh, I didn't support that. Peace is great.
The European leaders are gonna be saying the opposite of what they're saying right now. Look. In a hundred politicians, anyway, rethink, the rest line up somewhere tactically. So, yes, they will change their view. They'll complain about other things.
That's their job. They're in the opposition, but this war was a disastrous, stupid project that went awry, should have ended, makes no sense. And if Trump pulls it off as he can, if he's resolute now and clear minded and Witkoff does his work, because he'll be the one to do it, it looks like, and he does his work, then this won't be talked about or complained about. This will pass into history as just another one of those blunders. I mean, we don't talk about the two thousand three Iraq war or the twenty years waste in Afghanistan or so many Libya, so many completely ridiculous projects that America has been involved in for no conceivable reason other than these, weird game of risk ideas.
We gotta own that space on the board. Turns out the world and that game board are are rather different. But if Trump pulls this off, what he needs, I think, and what we need to understand is the American scene, it ain't great in general. The budget deficit is enormous. The fragility of society is is actually quite significant.
There is lots of depression, lots of violence, lots of problems that haven't been addressed for thirty years. Big, big budget deficit, huge, can't be solved with all due respect to Elon. It's not the budget deficit has very little to do with the size of the civil service. That's not where the budget deficit comes from. That's not where the spending comes from.
Spending comes from seven fifty overseas military bases, from wars, from massive outlays, of course on pensions, on health care, on interest payments, on the debt, and so forth. So war derails all of that. We're not with a buffer. We're not where the US dollar is king forever. It's almost the opposite, by the way, although it's not so clear to people.
But ten years from now, it's gonna be completely different international monetary scene from the one that we have now because the renminbi is gonna play a completely different role. And the way that international settlements will be done is completely different. You can if you watch like I do, you see all of the stitching together of a new system taking shape. So The US does not have this great room for maneuver, and it's all a game, and we can do this, and we can do that. The president needs to be really accurate right now, really accurate, and understand.
Also, not don't overplay the hand. The world's not desperately waiting to get into The US market as I think he thinks, that these tariffs give all this leverage. No. The US is not the big deal that maybe some people imagine right now. So we gotta get our act together, and you can't get your act together in war.
That's that's the bottom line.
Speaker 0: Professor Jeffrey Sachs, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Great to be with you, Steve. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That was great. Thanks. So in September, we went across the country, coast to coast, 17 different cities on a nationwide live tour, and it was amazing. We brought the entire staff with us like we always do because we all work together for so long and enjoy traveling together.
And one of our producers is a documentary filmmaker, and so he decided to make a documentary film about our trip a full month of so America was some of the most interesting people around. Different people join us every single night. John Gino and Russell Brand and Bobby Kennedy and JD Vance and Donald Trump, etcetera, etcetera. We had the best time, and the fruit of that is a documentary called On the Road, the Tucker Carlson live tour, which is available right now on TCN. On the Road, Tucker Carlson live tour is hilarious.
You will like it.
@ricwe123 - Richard
If you want to be entertained for 11 minutes, watch these Liberals having complete meltdowns. It's downright pathetic and utterly hilarious.... 😂😂😂 https://t.co/fKltkrRC8K
Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm out here asking what rights Trump is denying, and someone brought up abortion rights. Apparently, publishing on X makes me a Nazi. I was told to "read it" to see the Nazi content, but I use it for news. Others are saying that Elon Musk is a Nazi and doesn't care about his Jewish children or trans daughter.
I was also told that the treasury was hacked, but nothing has been hacked. The Department of Government Efficiency is supposedly finding fraud, like paying Social Security to people over 200 years old.
I support everyone's right to be here and speak freely. I was going to say that even though we have different points of view, we are all Americans. It's time to have a conversation and try to find common ground.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What rights is Trump denying you?
Speaker 1: Oh, well, Emmy, talk about my uterus first. Yeah. I don't have access to appropriate medical care.
Speaker 0: So you're talking about abortion. Let's just say what it is. It's abortion. So what right is abortion? Where do you have a right to abortion?
Speaker 2: Don't
Speaker 1: talk to this guy. It's Alex Jones. He's just
Speaker 0: Oh, okay.
Speaker 2: Have any kids that Jones is the
Speaker 1: one that said that those kids who died were
Speaker 3: not having a
Speaker 2: right to abortion. Where do you publish?
Speaker 0: I publish all over the place, all over the Internet.
Speaker 2: Where can we look for this?
Speaker 0: You can look for this on, x, Elon Musk platform. I'm sure you have an x account.
Speaker 2: I don't look at x. I quit x when that break bought it because because it's like a Nazi platform now.
Speaker 0: It's a Nazi platform? Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. It certainly is. You should check it out. Check it out.
Speaker 0: I don't I don't know what that I don't know how it's a Nazi platform.
Speaker 2: I'll tell you how. No. You haven't have you not been on there?
Speaker 0: I'm on there all the time.
Speaker 2: Then you must know the
Speaker 0: You must not pay
Speaker 2: close attention. Very close attention.
Speaker 0: What makes it Nazi? See?
Speaker 2: Read it. Read it, friend.
Speaker 0: I I I do read it. I read it for news. I just get news there. Like, I knew this protest was never here.
Speaker 2: Place you get news?
Speaker 0: No. I get news from everywhere, actually.
Speaker 2: Tell us where else. It's very right.
Speaker 0: I mean, literally everywhere. Fox, CNN, MSNBC.
Speaker 1: New. Have you not been new?
Speaker 0: I'm new? Have I not I've not been doing this very long. No. Yeah. So inform me.
Speaker 2: It shows.
Speaker 1: Just the fact that you don't realize that, x is a pro Nazi platform and right wing.
Speaker 0: So how is it pro Nazi?
Speaker 2: It's Read it. Read it.
Speaker 0: Well, you keep saying read it, but what does that mean?
Speaker 1: Elon Musk is,
Speaker 2: Elon Musk is a Nazi.
Speaker 0: You know Elon Musk has, like, five Jewish children?
Speaker 2: Oh, great.
Speaker 0: So how is he a Nazi with Jewish children?
Speaker 1: He's like, I'll stop you finding out
Speaker 2: You gotta do your homework.
Speaker 0: He knows.
Speaker 2: Gotta do your homework.
Speaker 0: What what homework? What have I not known?
Speaker 3: He doesn't
Speaker 2: What what do you not know?
Speaker 0: He he doesn't care about
Speaker 2: who?
Speaker 3: His children. His Jewish children. He doesn't care about them.
Speaker 0: He doesn't care about them? He just takes care of them and hangs out with them and sees them?
Speaker 3: He doesn't even hang out with them. You know? Half of them. Is this
Speaker 1: that one for a human shield?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Exactly. Okay.
Speaker 2: And
Speaker 3: he also has a trans daughter.
Speaker 0: So when did you start hating
Speaker 3: Elon Musk? He has a trans daughter he doesn't recognize.
Speaker 1: He got into the treasury and had his dominions hack our, the
Speaker 0: What's been hacked?
Speaker 1: The treasury. Man. Okay. They must not have any real news on it.
Speaker 0: No. No. Nothing has been hacked. Nothing has been hacked.
Speaker 1: Okay. How do you tell tell us more about that.
Speaker 0: How Okay.
Speaker 2: The the
Speaker 0: are you would you like me to tell you? So the Department of Government Efficiency is going into all the different funding data. They're going into all of it. Okay. And they're finding hundreds of billions of fraud is what they're finding.
Speaker 3: They found no fraud.
Speaker 0: They found no fraud.
Speaker 3: No fraud.
Speaker 0: So how so how old do what's the average age for somebody to live?
Speaker 3: Oh, you're talking about the 50 year
Speaker 2: that How do you even know about the fraud? That's not fraud, dude.
Speaker 0: So paying somebody that's a 50 years old Social Security isn't fraud.
Speaker 3: You know well, they're not how do you know they're paying it?
Speaker 0: Because they're in the system.
Speaker 2: So what? What DOSH is doing is fine, but release the actual data. It is
Speaker 0: every day. There's literally a website. That's right. There's literally a
Speaker 2: Doge Blank. Blank. You show me the address.
Speaker 0: It was blank. They are releasing the contracts. They literally show the contracts.
Speaker 2: Keep saying we found them, and they don't show any evidence. More reality television show and show the actual proof.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Line item It's happening every day. Yeah. Line Let's see. Here's your data on social security.
My dad? Here's here's a thousand of a thousand people above age age 20.
Speaker 2: That's just a bunch of numbers listed.
Speaker 0: This is literally the social security data sheet.
Speaker 2: Bunch of numbers listed.
Speaker 0: This is literally the social security data sheet. We're paying over a thousand people over age 220 social security. So? So do you know anybody over 200 years old, sir?
Speaker 1: Oh, no. That's not true, though.
Speaker 0: It's not true. See, that's what it is.
Speaker 2: That's the only reason.
Speaker 0: It's just not true.
Speaker 2: You wouldn't
Speaker 0: Oh, what's wrong with project twenty twenty five? Everything. Can you name one thing?
Speaker 1: Robin, I think yes. For starters, the, anti immigrant, stance.
Speaker 0: Who's anti immigrant?
Speaker 2: Trump was gonna try to kill you.
Speaker 0: Wait. How is Trump anti immigrant? What are you doing out here? Why does he hate that photo?
Speaker 2: That's your dad. Is this your litter? No. Are you sure? Because it looks like your litter.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, it's not.
Speaker 2: Want it? No. Sure.
Speaker 0: So Yeah. Come on, man.
Speaker 2: Here you
Speaker 3: go, buddy.
Speaker 0: So you just littered.
Speaker 2: Come on, man.
Speaker 0: So now you're still you littered.
Speaker 2: Take it.
Speaker 0: Take it. What about Musk? What don't you like about Musk?
Speaker 2: He's an awful person.
Speaker 0: He's he's also a thug, and he's not he's not elected.
Speaker 2: He's a brainless But they're
Speaker 0: Now what about all the people that aren't elected? Coward. You. What? You don't like Trump?
What's the lie?
Speaker 2: He's a racist.
Speaker 0: Well, he's, maybe the greatest president in modern American history.
Speaker 2: You think so?
Speaker 0: I do. Yeah.
Speaker 2: You're a big, awful person. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Why are you sorry? I'm sorry for you. Why? Because you're deluded.
Speaker 2: Hey, man.
Speaker 0: How am am I deluded? Is random. Do you know that? Okay.
Speaker 4: I noticed. I don't want an awful
Speaker 2: person for president. Anybody else need an awful person for president? No.
Speaker 0: So what what's all
Speaker 2: that looks off someone that's rude and nasty and has no redeem in quality only anybody
Speaker 0: only Rosie O'Donnell who's racist. I don't know. Why? Yeah. Well, what makes him racist?
What has he done that's racist? Can you tell me what you don't like about Doge? Yeah. Yeah. You can do better than that.
There you go. Yeah. Get a good one.
Speaker 2: There you go.
Speaker 0: There you go. That's much better.
Speaker 2: Ignore the troll.
Speaker 0: You can't ignore me. I know you.
Speaker 2: Ignore the
Speaker 0: troll. It's impossible to ignore me.
Speaker 2: Ignore the troll.
Speaker 0: So so this is what happens in cults actually.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm gonna
Speaker 0: You have you have people that tell you who you can and can't talk to, and they'll try to stop you from talking to somebody that has a different idea.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I will have a very unifying message.
Speaker 2: Everybody I hope so.
Speaker 0: That's why I hope that she would give me the megaphone. I promise my message will be very unifying.
Speaker 2: Well, I
Speaker 0: heard that you are talking about trolling people. Hold on a second.
Speaker 2: Hold on
Speaker 0: a second. That was a nonfilling. Come on. I've had people banging cowbells in my ear for the You wanna see what it's like to deal with discrimination and hate? Be a conservative at a liberal event.
This is insane, man. So, here's the deal. So here's the deal. So things were getting a little hot in there. The troopers didn't want me to stick around.
That's fine. I'm not trying to make their day any harder than it already is dealing with these freak shows. So they requested for me to leave that area. Insist and you're sick. Just stop, please.
Speaker 2: Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Here you go. Have the mic. Stop, man. Just give it up. Okay.
Let me be perfectly clear. They are the ones that invited me up there. Yeah. I know. Aren't you glad that you show how you guys show the world how loving and tolerant you are.
Yeah. Yeah. I can't wait till this footage comes out and everybody can see how hate filled this movement is. So here was the speech I was gonna give. Ladies and gentlemen, we are all Americans.
Speaker 2: We're excited.
Speaker 0: And even though we have different points of view and different ideology, you have your first amendment
Speaker 2: right to be here.
Speaker 0: I have first amendment rights to be here, and I think it's time for all of us to have a conversation. And we might find we have more in common than we do different. And we all can agree that there is corruption we all wanna get rid of. So let's all come together in peace. First amendment rights.
I support your right to be here. You support my right to be here. I appreciate you letting me speak. We're all Americans. We all wanna live in a better future.
So let's come together and and try to do that.
Speaker 5: While other networks lie to you about what's happening now, Infowars tells you the truth about what's happening next. Infowars.com forward /go.
Speaker 6: Go to the AlexJonesstore.com. Get the very best supplements, the highest quality like ultimate turmeric, ultimate sea moss, and and so many other game changing formulas that you will love and that will blow you away. Then the widest selection of Patriot t shirts and hoodies and sweaters and ball caps, and we're just adding more and more. It is the biggest selection. Over 400 different designs.
We are winning, ladies and gentlemen. But Infowars is recognized as the tip of the spear in the fight against the globalist. Elon's kicking their ass. Trump's kicking their ass because you've supported them. But please don't forget about Infowars because in this fight, Elon Elon and Trump, what they're doing is way larger and just incredible and amazing.
But you look then below that and we are the most effective. We are now reaching the most people of any of the shows out there. And not just the Patriot broadcast. We're reaching over a hundred million people a day conservatively, and that's because you stood with us and you supported us. But these new viewers, these new listeners, they're not going to the Alex show store dot com, and they're not getting product.
It is the hardcore viewers and listeners like you, the patriots that help launch this whole thing that are keeping us on the air. You're not the Johnny come latelies. You're the people that understand how it is to support independent patriot, pro human, anti globalist media that are enemies of humanity. So get great products. At the same time, keep us on air at the alexschonestore.com.
Speaker 0: I wanna
Speaker 6: thank you all for your past support, and I wanna encourage you now to take action. Become a VIP. It's $30 a month. Cancel anytime. Get $40 to spend in the store each month.
Special deals, special sales, special offers. Become a VIP if you're gonna buy anything because you make money on your first purchase when you do it. Again, thank you so much. Check out the AlexJonesstore.com today, and I thank you for keeping us on the air.