Because Ukraine. I wouldn't even say that Ukraine is truly independent or that Ukraine
has ever been truly independent. Of course, in nineteen eighty one, when
Ukraine independence on the paper, we can we can say that, yes,
Ukraine is independent. But at the same time Ukraine was very independent on Russia
and there are many business for that. Of course, now Ukraine is more
dependent on the West because if you claim that Ukraine is independent and you cut
all the support, financial, military and everything, the government in the structure
will collapse. So can we really say that Ukraine is independent. I wouldn't
say so, but it makes it very convenient to use Ukraine in to install
the government that will fulfill whatever the best once that government to do with regard
to Russia, I wouldn't say that Ukraine is truly independent or ever was.
Um So that's that's my two cents right now. Thank you, thank you,
Julie. Yeah, it was interesting on the question of NATO membership of
Razinski, he sort of defaulted to that position. Well, ultim he's been
asked directly this he said, Ultimately it's up to Ukrainians to decide, and
so really kicking the can down the road on that, but he he was
really a big believer, especially late in his career, really pushing Ukrainian nationalism,
but a united form of Ukrainian nationalism. And I think this was a
little bit idealistic on his part. But you can see what's really interesting about
his work, and it's still you can see his fingerprints all over US foreign
policy. You can see it all over the foreign policy establishment. A lot
of the maintenance or what people believe, the talking points, a lot of
these things come directly from some big new Prazynski. So it's incredible that the
influence he still has and most people don't even know it. It's almost subliminal
in a way. So he thought that NATO wouldn't work in Ukraine if the
country was divided, but he said if it could be united, then he
would say NATO is a good thing for Ukraine. Maybe a little bit idealistic,
and Praszynski was I would put him, class him as a moderate compared
to the neo kons, compared to some of the war Hawks, and you
can see there's been a departure some of the things. I think that if
transpired since my Dawn, which you mentioned, Julia Prazynski probably might not have
a roofed off. He was a big believer in stability, and anything that
could foster instability and could cascade into instability he would generally be against, except
for certain circumstances where we could talk about Afghanistan, but in terms of a
direct confrontation with the nuclear power, like what's going on right now between NATO
and Russia in a proxy, where I tend to would imagine ape against it.
So this isn't the current The current foreign policy of the US is not
completely Prasnskiite. It's definitely taken a neo Khon detour, I think. But
we'll come back. We'll come back to you, Julie, and I want
to welcome Jay Dyer to the stage. Jay, if you want to introduce
yourself to us and just give us your initial thoughts and I have we've spoken
about this in the past, Jay, and I think you've got a really
interesting insight into the biographical kind of his career, history of Brazinski, and
how this kind of shaped him as he came in, you know, up
to his sort of the peak of his career. He could say, as
a national security advisor to Jimy Carter, but go ahead J. Dyer.
Yeah, thank you. I just hopped on here, so I might have
missed some of the beginning part. I don't know what you guys are talking
about, but I'm reminded of his twenty twelve book, you Know, a
Strategic Vision, one of his last books. You know, he talked pretty
extensively about Ukraine being a key focal point. So you know, we know
that what all was going on with Ukraine was already in the works by Brazinsky,
because Brazinsky said that the key to controlling the Eurasian heartland is is Eurasian
or excuse me, is Ukraine. So he sees this as an important,
you know, energy corridor, geostrategic corridor. I think he talked about that
in Grand Chess Board as well. So in my view, I don't really
see a huge difference between the Neo Khans and Brazinski. They might have some
different approaches to how we get to those end goals, but they seem to
typically have the same technocratic end goal when we look at, you know,
between two ages. So there might be a minor differences between somewhere like Samuel
Huntington and Brazinski, but at the end of the day, you know,
we all have the same goal, and that's why he was chosen by Kissinger
and Rockefeller to run the Trilateral Commission. I'm just finishing up Patrick Wood and
Anthony Sutton's book on the history of the Trilaterals, which is it's dated because
it was written the seventies, but it's also insightful because we get an insight
into what the CFR and the Trilateral Commission was really up to in the nineteen
seventies. And so I found it actually to be to be really good.
And then in terms of his background, you know, Patrick, I think
made a good point a while back that you know what, probably what motivates
a lot of this on the part of Brazinski for the Cold War was his
you know, Polish heritage, his dislike and distaste for Russia, so everything
everything Russian was very distasteful to him. I think his background is some sort
of Polish nobility, and so you know, he goes to McGill University,
that's a one percent total mk Ultra university that we're doing a lot of the
cutting edge MK ultra research at at at McGill. I don't think it's accidental
that, you know, between two ages comes out of that. But McGill
thought process on the part of Brazinski, because there's a really close connection between
technocracy, transhumanism, and MK ultra. And you know, he begins between
two ages by talking about mutating man. You know, he's literally that's what
he says when the first fifteen or twenty pages is that man can be mutated,
his nature can be changed. And then he goes into talking about Skynet,
weather weapons, all the stuff that you would think would be kind of
crazy conspiracy theory stuff. It's it's really all throughout between two ages. And
I would add too that a lot of people tend to think of people like
Anthony Sutton, for example, as maybe conspiratorial as a professor in the United
States doing the history of Scolin Bones, doing the history of Wall Street,
support for Hitler and the Bolsheviks. But in fact, Brazinski cites Sutton's research
in between two ages. So Brazinski he saw Sutton to be a credible source.
So in my view, you know, he's a key figure to study,
just like Kissinger, to understand the mindset of the technocrats and the globalists.
And I know his background and his books, so you know, I'm
not super up to date on exactly what he was pushing forward towards the end
of his days, but you know, he certainly seems to fit in my
mind with this idea of I think Patrick's write about him favoring stability. But
he was also the author of the Arc of Crisis, which was the model
throughout all the Soviet blocks to implement the strategy of tension, which would then
ensure that they would be opened up to the West into neoliberal economic policies.
So he also has a history of proxy terror. You know, he's the
father of Krety Mujahadeen and all that through Operations cyclone and so forth. So
I see him as not too different from neo cons in my view, and
I thank you jay At that part of the early Persenticky career is something that
a lot of people overlook between two ages is like a seminal text for you
could say an organization like the World Economic Forum. It's it's really an variational
text exactlynocracy. And most people don't don't really know him for that. But
it's interesting that was very young early in his career, and I think he
was identified as a standout talent as a result but it was interesting as well.
You know, he's coming out of a World War two situation, seeing
the rise of Hitler and then the Soviet Union takeover of Poland, his his
home country, and meanwhile he's in Canada looking, you know, watching these
things, and I think it had a big impact on him. His analysis
was very in his foreign policy concerns, is very Poland centric in a certain
way, like you'd always refer back to it. He would often compare Ukraine
to Poland. In fact, he lamented that being his family Polish nobility,
but from Galicia, by the way, or what is now or is known
as Galicia, so in that region that would be formerly a Poland, I
don't possibly not even in the current borders. But he thought that Ukraine reminded
him of let's say, eighteenth century Poland, whereby it was being pressured by
the Prussian Empire and the Russian Empire and lost its sovereignty. And he was
afraid that Ukraine would go the way to Poland, and he didn't want to.
He want to to right the wrong of history of what happened to Poland,
this tragedy of Poland losing its sovereigntine. His mission was to ensure that
that didn't happen to Ukraine. So big influence. You know, his personal
history, I think a lot of his geopolitical thinking, and certainly in Grand
Chess Board with the Ukrainian part. It definitely comes up in a lot of
his writings and he's constantly making references to it, which is I think really
interesting and if you think about it, look at how the US foreign policy
is now more reoriented in Europe. The United States is really pushing the current
Iron Curtain line for a their frontline against Russia further east in Poland is becoming
the new Germany in that set. So that part is interesting. So but
we sent a few more request I think, I say, speaker request to
Glenn and Alex if you can. If you're if you want to come up
to speak, just click on that and accept. You can come up on
stage. M A. Sorry Patrick, Yeah, Hi, Hi to the
panel as well, j Julia, thanks for joining. I want to add
that if it's your first time speaking and you're trying to accept the mic request,
it won't work or you may not see it, so you'd have to
go into your phone settings and make sure your microphone permission is it's on for
Twitter. Um So, going to whichever phone it is, an Oroid,
an Android or an iPhone, go into your permissions for Twitter and make sure
you've got the microphone switched on, and then you'll be able to accept the
mic request here. Um So that may be the issue because I've also sent
them a mic request down well one one one brief quote that I think might
be relevant in strategic vision, he cites in the chapter on Ukraine or Beyond
twenty twenty five, He goes back to grant chessboard and said, my analysis
is basically still valid. Eurasia's the largest continent geopolitical axial power that dominates Eurasia
would control most of the world's productive regions. A mere glance the map suggests
control of Eurasia would be automatically to entail African subordination. Of the world lives
in Eurasia and most of the world's wealth is there. Therefore, after the
United States, the next largest would be Eurasia. Thus, to control the
world requires controlling this region. That's that's the old Alfred mckinder right, Eurasian
heartland land the land heartland thesis, right. He just basically restates that so
I just see him as kind of the strategist of a more technocratic soft power
approach rather than the Neocon sort of you know, war approach, hard preemptive
strikes and all that. But he does say that he thinks that, you
know, United States can give stability to all these regions, and so that's
so we might have to engage in u you know, terror to bring to
bring stability. That seems to be this Percinsk model. Well he was.
He's very critical of the Bush administration and the sort of scorched Earth Iraqi operation,
and I thought that was interesting. He's also human rights was part of
his doctrine, so he was kind of a you could say, a type
of responsibility protect So that kind of coincides with maybe the Obama rhetoric during the
Obama administration or the Clinton administration exactly the r twop model. There was something
he read a quote of him before he passed away where he was critical of
the direction of things where things were going. I don't remember where I read
it, but yeah, there was something maybe towards his end days where he
was maybe having some second thoughts on some of these approaches. Yeah, yeah,
I noticed this as well. In later interviews. So that's a good
point. JA. So mckinder's heartland theory, the idea that Eurasia being the
world island as he like, as he called it. Mckinder born in the
mid nineteenth century, passed away at the end of the Second World War.
And so this idea that if you control the world island, you control the
world. And you could say, look at this, this is more or
less this has been adopted as US grand strategy more or less, but it's
really a follow up to in my opinion anyway, British imperial grand strategy absolutely
was the great game one point zero. Oh go ahead, Jay, No,
no, just absolutely totally agree. Yeah, so you could say,
right now we're looking with the US taking the bats on from the British Empire
is the great game two point zero. And this is what I've written about
in the last year in relation to Ukraine. The great res at the rearrangement
of energy policy, cutting off Europe from Russia in terms of energy nord stream,
et cetera, and also to thwart China's Belton Road initiative. But then
that was also an old mission of the British Empire, was to cut off
relations between the bizarre Russia and India at the time, and wars were fought
to that end because at that time money to preserve its mercantile, its naval,
merchant navy written in the Netherlands preserve their merchant navy, domination of global
trade routes. That's the foundation of the empire. So but things have changed.
Obviously, the world has changed. The merging Chinese moment is upon us.
India has also come up. I think Khalisi, our co host,
all handed over to you because I think in terms of the China's Belton Road
Initiative, the New Silk Road, um, this is definitely something that I
think Washington foreign policy and Grand strategy planners are not happy about, would like
to disrupt. Is something that they don't want to see come online, and
they don't want to see connections between Europe twenty years, which is obviously the
Iraq, Afghanistan and stuff. But there's a lot of things that have been
in the planning. So so the bri as it's called the Belton Road Initiative,
it's it's a Chinese lead plan for a new trade infrastructure and it includes
sea land routes which connects Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
And so it's known as the belt. Okay, so the Bolton Road Initiative,
and it's it's it refers to the overland trading routes and the road refers
to the new sea trade infrastructure, and it provides like an alternative market for
China's stay owned companies beyond its own borders, and it helps to stimulate the
economies in China's Central Province. For China, it's it's perceived as vitally important
in securing its borders on the Asian mainland. But it has paced a lot
of opposition from some countries, including India, and concerns over you know,
obviously India is going to raise this corruption debt service in but you know,
as an example, I think it's been quite successful in some areas like Africa.
Chinese investments in Africa, Europe and some Southeast Asian countries have attracted a
lot of support and obviously from their rivals a degree of criticism as well.
And I want to kind of you touched on this just now, Patrick,
So if I move away from the br and just talk about India's historical relationship
with Russia in the present day, there are global sanctions on Russia. So
the European countries, as an example, the UK are not allowed to buy
any oil and gas. Neither is America from Russia because of these sanctions.
But Secretary of Lincoln went last year. I believe his delegation and I believe
he may have gone in person, but certainly his delegation went last year to
India and reassured Prime Minister Maudi that look, you know, we're putting these
global sanctions on, but we realized that, you know, your relationship with
US is very important. So if you want to do business, and I
think it was a way of giving permission knowing that India was going to do
it regardless, you can, so India, said Prime Minister Mothy said yes,
but we're not going to use dollars, We're going to use rubles and
rupees. So it's been a whole twelve months and India has been buying oil
and gas at a much discounted rate and then selling it to America and Europe
at an inflated price. So we're paying more than we would if we just
bought it off Russia, and our governments know that it's still Russian but we're
just not buying it off Russia. Now. I was looking into this a
little bit in preparation for this this space, and one of the things I
didn't realize is that the relationship between Russia and India goes right back to the
sixteen hundreds when the Czars wanted to establish a direct relationship with the Mughal Empire,
and indirect trade was common by then in terms of cotton, dyes,
garments and things like that. That was all filtering through into too Russia,
you know. But by the seventeenth century, they perceived it as the land
of rubies, diamonds and fine fabric and they were reading you know that the
Tsars I I was looking this up. They were they were really inspired by
the writings of Marco Polo, who talked about rubies and diamonds and you know,
the real or imaginary wealth of India and exotic inhabitants. And so they
went over there. And I think it was in nineteen forty seven that Prime
Minister and Naru had a strategic vision to seek diplomatic relations with what was then
the Ussrum, even before India attained independence. And they've got a very enthusiastic
response, a Soviet response, and that's when they launched a relationship and it's
been going, you know, for I don't know, almost eight decades,
nine decades since since since the independence. Even very strong and it's it's a
relationship apart from trade and everything else in the history, which gives it a
strong foundation. It's mutually recognized geopolitically as logical for the two countries because they've
got common concerns if you look at their concerns around the West and Central Asia,
India, Russia have had complex relationships with China, and they're both in
a quest for a kind of multipolar world in which every pole seeks to protect
its core interest and promote only its aspirations. Um And I think because of
that they are very solid partners to this day. Um So, yeah,
I thought that was quite interesting as well. And then you look at that
relationship and how they both have this kind of conflicting relationship with China, and
you look at the BRI, the BRI, the Balton Bold Initiative that China
is expanding massively. Um I can see tension. I can see a lot
of tension going on there, but there's this very little focus on it.
At the moment because of Russia Ukraine. So a land there. Thanks Patrick,
and thank you, thank you, Lucy. Yeah, I think it's
really interesting Clesia. As you're saying that that when when people see positive relations
between Russia and India, the sort of the usual punditry in the in the
Western press will say, well, that's because Putin and Modi are both autocrats,
and autocrats tend to get along and they speak the same language, but
just completely ignoring the whole historical context of how there's fealty between people in India
and Russia, and it goes back, as you said, hundreds of years.
And I think I think that whole story that that is the great game,
that competition of the British and the Russian empires uh in the in the
eighteenth in nineteenth century, that is that is effectively a big component of the
Great Game. And I think the great game two point zero, we're in
it right now. And I might add as well, Brazinski is a big
new Brasinsky viewed multipolarism as dangerous and he said is inherently unstable and therefore should
be avoided it all costs. So he really saw the United States as the
only progressive modern power that could and that had the cultural influence, the political
influence, the innovation, the military power to keep to maintain global stability.
And we'll go into it. Also another the thing that presents he said he
issued a warning, I believe in the Grand Chesspoort that not to view China
as a menace because it would become a self fulfilling prophecy. On that point,
I think he's very accurate. So, yeah, he wasn't strident against
China at that time and viewed view Japan in Britain as not significant geostrategically going
into the future, he tend to lean towards Germany in Europe and lean towards
France. So that's interesting because and in terms of NATO expansion. Yeah,
also I'm not sure how he felt about that, but certainly I don't know
if he would have been supporting NATO expanding into the Pacific, which they just
opened an office in or they're going to open an office in Japan imminently,
so NATO wants to open a dialogue with the Japanese and so that would extend
the allowlience into the Pacific. So all of that was not on the table
during Brazynski's high water mark of his career. But I want to welcome onto
the stage author Alex Kraner, who's also based in Europe. And Alex,
if you want to introduce yourself in your interest in this subject, and then
you know, what are your general thoughts on this topic. Just yeah,
hi, so good evening to everybody. On my apologies, I missed part
of the show because I was wrestling with figuring out how to enable my microphone.
If I end up saying something that's already that's already been said, please
a humane. So I think that one of the mysteries of where the obsession
with Ukraine comes from clearly stretches back to the British imperial policy of the imperative
to dominate the Eurasian landmask. And I think that one thing that is important
to keep in mind, and this is always an economic objective and that ideology
only comes on top of that. So you know the empire which is driven
by the by the banking system. I don't know how much detail we have
time to get into their by all means, Alex, by all means,
okay, So well, you know the Western banking system, which is based
on fractional reserve. Banking grows and thrives on credit creation. Right, credit
is how you put other people in debt and then they basically work for you
because they have to pay back their debts with interest and other people debts are
your assets. And the more assets you have, the bigger business, the
wealthier you are. But for debt to be good, it needs to be
based on it needs to be founded on good collateral. And so the Empire's
interest in the Eurasian land masks is because it's the world's largest source of good
collateral. It's where more than two thirds of the world's energy reserves are.
It's it's where most of the world's metals and forestry reserves are, and agricultural
arable land, and all of these assets are worthless without people to develop them
and to exploit them. So this is where also two thirds of the global
population are, and most of the world's GDP and so forth. So that
is where the Empire's interests in maintaining dominance over this landmass comes from, and
it's been this way for centuries. And Russia in particular, which is one
of the world's largest treasure troves of good collateral and a large well educated working
class has been the target of invasion from the West for more than three hundred
years now, if i'm unless I'm wrong, it started already with the Swedish
invasion of Russia, and then Napoleon and then Hitler, and then there was
you know, the transition from communism to capitalism during the nineteen nineties, where
there wasn't a military part of the invasion, but there was very much you
know, a color revolution type things, where Western financial interests pretty much took
over the government of Russia through Boris Hilson's cabinet. And now we have again
since since uh, you know, since Vladimir Putin took over and he managed
to rest control over Russian resources and Russian economy from this Western financial interest now
we have the attempt to distable as and partition Russia through Ukraine. And so
you know, when you when we're talking about Bigna Bersinsky, who is you
know, um protegian recruit of Henry Kissinger. Henry Kissinger himself is the protegian
recruit of the Rockefeller interests. And they all are intellectual disciples of Alfred Mackinder
and so the you know, the imperial strategy has been explicitly formulated for more
than a century now, and I think that all the all the all the
ideological, um and philosophical aspects of this are only you know, a cellophane
wrapping on what is essentially an economic interest. And the way you would would
you would have a free reign to exploit this economic interest is to make sure
that no power can oppose you and that no power can challenge you. And
then it's always your financial system that finances the the exploitation of any particular geography.
And that's the way it has been with the you know, imperial colonial
system for many centuries now, um. And this is what we're observing now.
So you know the talk about freedom, democracy, uh Poland, Germany,
Ukraine, Russia, all of this, it's it's all part of this
basically imperial co lonial expansionism, which cannot suffer m rivals at all. It
doesn't it doesn't at all allow for fair game, for cooperation, for trade
between fair and equal partners. All it does is it it plunders and it's
it's objective is to have those resources at the lowest possible cost. So part
of the strategy is also demand destruction so you know the geography where you where
you exploit resources, you have to keep those societies poor, too poor to
compete with you for those resources. You don't want them to develop their own
industries and to divert the resources that you wish to exploit, and so you
keep them poor. And so you know, emergence of strong powers like Russia
and China and increasingly India and Iran that are able to that are able to
resist the dictator of the empire is unacceptable. And this is also why speaking
of Brasisianski doesn't want multipolarity, because all the nations are preferably meant to be
kept weak and impoverished. And so anyway to wrap it up, I think
that we always have to keep in mind that this isn't this is the driver
of the strategy is always economic interests. Thank you, thank you. Alex
Crainer, Yeah, I absolutely. You know, there's a lot of talk
with Brasynski and then with the project of from a new American centuries of maintaining
American dominance, and a lot of people believe that's just dominant for pure powers
sake, or a sort of nationalist chauvinism or vanity U and being the hegemon.
But no, it's absolutely economic. Um, you know the culture imposing
your culture globally is because you're if your culture is the dominant culture and you're
setting the pace, as Brazinski says, setting the pace culturally, then you
will follow on with the economic benefits to capitalize on that culture as it exports.
And in terms of geopolitics, it's always been for the US opening markets,
maintaining markets for transnational corporations. Can I can I add to? He
also has a section, by the way, a Strategic Vision, where he
talks about the importance of Hollywood being exported to all these cultures. So of
all things, as she talks about Hollywood as a tool of Americanism to you
know, spread the idea of economic basically all life being organized around economics,
which you know, essentially backing up everything that you guys were just saying,
yeah, yes, if if I'm it. Just just to finish at the
main driver of the of all this is that if you control the geography,
if you control these nations, then you also control the resources, which is
the collateral on the basis of which you then build up your own financial assets.
So it's you know, in the background. It's always the banking interests
who are the driver of imperial overreach, which is you know why, behind
you know Britchinsky and Henry Kissinger you find ultimately the Rockefellers and the Rothels and
and so forth. It's always the It's always the bankers who are driving.
And now that they are at risk of losing their hedgemony and even losing the
way to return it by losing the war in Ukraine, you have also seen
that it's it's the bankers who are in a in a massive panic. And
you know the A few weeks ago, we saw a City Group vice president
Julie Julie Monaco, who was there sitting in on a panel saying that we
have to win this war. You know, since when is since when is
the vice president of I forget I forget her title exactly, But it has
nothing to do with foreign funding. Since when is a person like that suddenly
going we have to win the war. That just tells you everything you need
to know about empire and about who is the driving force between between permanent wars
in the world. No, definitely, Alex and I saw the USAID conference.
Uh, this was last month. Samantha power herself was there holding court
with all of the top transnational corporates and their brands in the world. Nestlee,
I might have seen Unilever or these types of companies. They're all there
for mapping out the future opportunities in Ukraine post war opportunities. So get in
early and build up your brand loyalty with the Ukrainian population was her message.
And so it's just so it's a pretty incredible front by the US. They're
absolutely confident that this is going to go their way in the end, and
they're already lining up their corporate stakeholders. And quincidentally, Alex, did you
see black Rock fly into Kiev only a few days ago to meet the president
Zelenski? And I think there were there were a whole team of black Rock
people there and then Zelensky and I think his right hand, and that was
it is almost like they were issuing orders to Zelensky. What are your thoughts
on that one? Well, yes, you know they are. They're panicked
because they're losing, and they're you know, their good collateral is going to
be knocked out of their hands. And then a few weeks before that,
it was JP Morgan representatives who flew into Kiev, and we know that City
and JP Morgan and Goldman, Saxon, black Rock have very extensive investments in
Ukraine. But you know, if they can't control Ukraine politically, then they
lose the privileged access to UM funding all the development. So you know,
now they're going there showing a brave faith. They're promising reconstruction. You know,
the fact that they're losing the war only makes it ever more urgent to
conceal it, because that is there. They will be punished in the capital
markets, you know, because this is this is not advertised, this is
not talked about, this is not transparent. But there their books, their
business, their assets depend on the collateral, and once it comes clear to
the financial markets that they're losing the collateral, their business is going to implode.
A lot of the a lot of the assets that they have on their
books, the debts that they carry are going to become worthless. And it's
going to show in the markets before we know anything else about it, you
know, and well you know, the banking stocks are already creating. And
I think this is partly the reason, and this same principle. I'm sorry,
I don't want to take too much time. But this same principle I
was, I was sure its good was going to play out. UM in
August two thousand and twenty one, if I'm if I'm not mistaken, when
the United States withdrew from Afghanistan, and then from that moment on you could
see the sovereign bonds of the of the EU, the United States, and
the UK practically from that time they started nose diving. It's all connected,
even if it's not. UM. You know, you can't really draw a
straight line between one series and the other series. But the markets do react
to these things, and we're going to see them react. And I think
that the banking sector in the West isn't a huge world of trouble. Yeah,
thank you, Alex, Yeah, one hundred percent. That Alex editor
of The Naked Edgy. That's his website. You want to follow Alex Craner's
work, and also he's author of a number of books specializes in the financial
markets and looking at these sort of trends as they relate to geopolitics and and
this this is also one of the fundamental if there's a defect in Prasinski,
he has a few fundamental UM flaws, you could say blind spots. One
of them is as far as Ukraine goes, he really Brazynski really believed that
they need, they shouldn't be a satellite of Russia. And I'm sort of
like thinking to myself, well, it's more than a satellite as far as
Russia's concerned, because of their geostrategic and national security concerns. But he believed
that only Russia could really manipulate Ukraine, um for Russia's own interest, that
that was the only foreign power that could manipulate Ukraine, and and you know,
to take advantage of it as it were, And his idea for Ukraine's
future was to prepare it in any way possible for European Union membership. In
the latter part of his career, he said that that's a single singular focus.
Whatever it needs to happen, that needs to happen, needs to be
joining the EU, to become more European, to become more modern, more
pluralistic. And I think what's happened since, especially since twenty fourteen in the
Maidanku has been anything but. And again that's the departure from the idealistic pragmatism
of Prasinski. To the reckless, destructive neiokon policies of the Victoria New Lens
of the world. You can see there's definitely a departure there and it's not
the it's not the Ukraine. I think that Prasinski had envisioned us certainly right
now not a great candidate for European membership, but it's not going to slow
down or slavonder Land trying. But Julia Kane, I see you have your
hand up, go ahead, yes, I just wanted to add to that
kind of stations. Regarding the assets, so Ukraine has been selling a lot
of its assets for a while, so even before Russia entry Ukraine. In
every last year, for example, there was a great scandal about the forest
from western Ukraine Zaka Patti regions. These are forests that are you cannot really
replenish them or restore, and they have been selling different tube. Obviously the
money, some of the money probably would go to the treasury, but most
of them, as you can imagine, with corruption going on, a lot
of them just stolen. And as of right now they're sending a lot of
plants there in national assets that have been privatized first and then they go to
a higher leader. Considering that there's a war in Ukraine. Assets have been
devolued a lot, so it keeps a great opportunity to scoop them up,
which is what a thing going on right now. UM. If you read
the news from January, um for the first time Ukraine UM um sold the
port in Adessa oldest So that's quite interesting as well. UM. And the
thing is Ukraine um uh you know has been acquiring acquiring a lot of debts
UM even before half every twenty fourth of last year. UM. So I
gave a lot of money to Ukraine, and I think that they understand that
Ukraine, Ukraine and government cannot really return the mind in case, so the
award that's going on a lot of uh, that's have been a race.
But still Ukraine is and huge debts to into to European Union. Practically healthform
just gives give your training money and I don't think that they will be able
to return that. So in this case, some of the assets that Ukraine,
Ukraine as a pountry holds, they will be sold. So in this
reminds me or what has been going on in Russian the nineties. So everyone
who who's at least a little bit familiar with what Russia has been going through
in the nineties, which was called Wild nineties. UM. So the Yaton
administration was consulted by a lot of American specialists, including CIA, and the
same thing has been going on. So a lot of assets, a lot
of plants, a lot of fabrics would is stolen or just sold for cheap,
mostly to America, which American you know, to American citizens. So
in um even you know, some some of the advisors to Bill Clinton said
that the United States practically bought Ussrum for like one pen yiond dollars, which
is not you know, surprising um in. In in retrospect, Ukraine will
go through to the same process, which is kind of sad because they were
part of the history of Russia and they could just you know, uh take
it in a lesson, but right now they're just selling off everything. Um
In. I think that they will go through the same time as Russia went
through in the nineties. Um And it took Russia a while to actually recover,
um which coincided with the putting taken over. Um So probably the same
thing will happen in Ukraine. Yeah, I think, well, quite a
bit of that did happen in Ukraine in the nineties. I think George Soros
himself has boasted about how well he did as a as a as a hedge
fund or a corporate raider, uh in you know, basically assets stripping,
uh you know, former state and former national industries in Ukraine during his tour
in the nineties. And George Source has done many such tours around the world.
But yeah, that's that's an interesting point. The other thing, uh,
Julia, is that the you know, the United States especially is well.
I won't pick on anybody for partisan reasons, but in terms of the
Democrat donor class. Uh, they've used Ukraine as an ATM machine for quite
a few years, especially since this second term of Barack Obama, and they
saw the privat Bank scandal is a good example. A lot of people point
at Hunter Biden working for Barisma, and you know, they make a big
deal about his eighty grand a month job. He has no experience, he
doesn't have to show up to work, and he coined a you know,
a few million, I don't know, five million or so, I'm not
sure what the total was by the end of it, and his father going
to going to Ukraine. He went thirteen times Joe Biden as vice president,
thirteen trips to Ukraine I think at least, and one of those trips he
threatened to withhold one point two billion in loans to the Ukraine if they didn't
fire their prosecutor, Shoken, and I believe Shoken at the time. My
understanding is from the Ukrainian press that he was investigating scandal regarding Barissma. But
that's not all. Also Barisma and its owner's role in the sovereign debt scandal.
So there is money laundering going on. They're issuing these sovereign bonds or
money is being siphoned out of the national budget, and somehow that money goes
offshore via offshore bank accounts, goes through a US investment house that's connected right
up to the top of Black black Rock and the Democrat downer classes called Templeton
Franklin Investments, and then the money comes back to purchase the sovereign debts and
with six six or six and a percent yield or something like this. And
so meanwhile, at one point this was so bad that the you know,
something like thirty over thirty percent of the Ukraine revenues state revenues are going to
service debt, sovereign debt because everyone was basically having a party on the back
of this country, and a lot of these were foreign, big foreign money
was cashing in on this, so Ukrainians getting no benefit whatsoever from it.
So that was the real scandal. Seven point two billion sovereign debt scandal that
makes Hunter Biden little chunk of change seemed pretty trivial. But it's no surprise
that the media is not covering that because both I believe they are both Republicans
and Democrats implicated in that in that scandal as well. I'll post something in
the nest about that because we did a good investigation into that story at twenty
first Century Wire. So that's worth that's worth commenting on. Also want to
welcome to the stage Shukri abd Rahman and former congressional candidate in Minnesota. Republican
congressional candidate, Hello Shukri, I think sugar is not available with us.
Guys hear me. Oh there she is, Hello Shukri. Hi. I
don't know why I'm keep having blitches. I can hear you, but then
when I try to speak you guys can't seem to hear me. Thank you,