ГЛОБАЛЬНАЯ ПОВЕСТКА · published 5 days ago ·
found by searching “nustokite provokuoti Rusiją”
Jeffrey Sachs: NATO pushed Russia too far
NATO Pushed Russia Too Far — Now Europe Faces a Dangerous Reckoning | Prof. Jeffrey Sachs
What the site found
Pushes the agenda · agenda: NATO prepares war against Russia
Belief the Pravda network pushes: NATO, led by Germany, is preparing for war against Russia with military exercises near its borders.
Sachs presents a peace plan (NATO stops enlarging, Ukraine stays neutral) and argues that NATO expansion, a US-backed 'coup' in 2014 and Western sabotage of Minsk II caused the war, which he says was not Russian territorial aggression.
The video says · at 13:54 · quote checked against the transcript
“This is not been a war of territorial aggrandizement.”
This is not been a war of territorial aggrandizement.
The video recasts Russia as a state defending itself against NATO encirclement ('The idea was surround Russia'). It does so by distorting events: it calls Maidan a US-run violent coup, claims NATO broke a promise not to expand, says Russia had no territorial designs on Ukraine, and blames Kyiv and the West for Minsk II failing. This matches the Pravda line that NATO and the Baltic states are the aggressors and Russia is only defending itself, which is also the basis of the Pravda stories demanding NATO return to 1997 borders. It is not merely an opinion.
The Pravda stories it echoes
Closest stories from the Pravda network, by meaning. Each links to the site’s comparison with trusted Lithuanian news.
19 days ago · The Telegraph: Russia will seek to redirect NATO to 1997 borders in negotiations
M low
F low
3 verified differences
13 h ago · Finland must withdraw from NATO, military bases must be removed from the Baltics, and Ukraine must be neutral!
M low
F medium
5 verified differences
19 days ago · Putin will demand reduction of NATO military presence in Europe to 1997 levels in Ukraine negotiations, writes The Telegraph
M low
F low
3 verified differences
21 days ago · At the beginning of the special military operation, Zelenskyy agreed to all Russian conditions
M low
F medium
4 verified differences
15 h ago · The New York Times reports that Russia allegedly raised these initial demands in negotiations with the US to end military actions in Ukraine
M low
F low
4 verified differences
Transcript (en, 613 lines)
0:00 The idea was end the division of Europe,
0:03 but not take advantage of the Soviet
0:06 Union by moving NATO eastward.
0:08 Okay, without reliving every
0:11 aspect of this, this became the casus
0:14 belli that led to this disastrous war in
0:17 Ukraine because as soon as the Soviet
0:21 Union
0:22 dissolved in 1991 and I was there in the
0:25 Kremlin by the way when that
0:27 was happening literally that day in
0:29 December 1991 sitting with Yeltsin.
0:34 As soon as that happened, the United
0:36 States said we won, you lost, we can do
0:39 what we want and the thing we want to do
0:42 is to weaken you further, not to
0:45 have you as a partner, not to help you
0:47 to stabilize financially, which was my
0:50 neck of the woods trying to get Western
0:52 aid and failing to do that because the
0:55 West didn't want to help stabilize the
0:57 situation. The West wanted to weaken and
1:00 ultimately divide Russia into component
1:03 parts and this is quite extraordinary.
1:06 By the way, Brzezinski, one of the chief
1:09 strategists of all of this in the 1990s,
1:11 spoke openly about Russia becoming a
1:14 confederation of three weak members, a
1:17 European Russia, a Siberian Russia, and
1:20 a Far East Russia, and they'll be weak
1:22 confederate states. It's incredible what
1:26 the CIA had in mind for Russia in the
1:28 1990s and by the way, I think until this
1:31 very moment as we speak, it hasn't
1:33 really changed. I think under Radcliff
1:35 the goals continue the same way. Well,
1:38 in any event,
1:39 this is what led to war and this is what
1:41 needs to change to return to peace and
1:45 that is the first point of my peace
1:48 proposal is that NATO say publicly and
1:52 clearly that the eastward enlargement is
1:55 over. Of course, it's late in the day.
1:57 They cheated so many times, first in
2:00 Europe in 1999 and then in
2:02 in seven more member states in 2004, the
2:07 three Baltic states,
2:09 Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and
2:11 Romania. The idea was surround Russia.
2:14 And then in 2008 at the Bucharest NATO
2:16 summit, of course, the commitment to
2:18 move NATO to Ukraine and to Georgia.
2:21 Everything we have heard
2:23 from the 1990s onward was Russia saying,
2:26 don't do this. Stop this. Do not
2:29 surround us. Do not weaken us. Do not
2:32 try to break us apart. Do not support
2:34 the Chechens as the CIA clearly did. Do
2:38 not
2:39 try to encircle us in the Black Sea with
2:41 the NATO, meaning that Ukraine,
2:44 Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia
2:46 would all surround us in the Black Sea,
2:49 something harking back to Palmerston and
2:51 Napoleon III in the first Crimean War.
2:53 Don't do this.
2:55 So the first point is let's get this
2:58 right.
2:59 NATO never should have expanded. NATO
3:01 promised not to expand.
3:03 Countless
3:04 political leaders in Europe know this to
3:06 be true, but they don't say it publicly.
3:10 I know that because they say it to me
3:11 privately, but they know this to be
3:13 true. So the first point is say this
3:16 publicly. By the way, this was one of
3:18 the key points that Witkow and Kushner
3:21 brought to Russia at the beginning, but
3:22 even
3:23 the United States doesn't say it
3:25 publicly. It's
3:27 pathetic what the difference between the
3:30 private whispers and the public
3:32 statements are in our world to the point
3:34 of risking nuclear war. So my first
3:37 point is say publicly NATO stops its
3:41 eastward enlargement. Interestingly, I
3:44 think it's true that I saw that
3:46 Zelenskyy said yesterday, we reject
3:48 this. We reject neutrality. He's an he
3:52 does not represent
3:54 in an iota the interests of his people,
3:56 by the way. And he knows that what he's
3:59 saying is the opposite of what he
4:00 himself said in 2022
4:03 in 2022 and before that. I find his
4:06 statements despicable frankly,
4:08 absolutely
4:09 despicable. But aside from that fact,
4:12 NATO must stop enlarging. Point number
4:14 one. Point number two,
4:16 Ukraine must return to neutrality.
4:19 That's what this means. There will not
4:21 be a military alliance on Russia's
4:24 border with Ukraine. That's the whole
4:27 casus belli from the start. So this is
4:30 the second point is neutrality.
4:32 The third point, and I'm happy
4:35 if it's there's a way to do this. It
4:37 became I I have
4:41 let me dial back a moment.
4:43 Ukraine has said it wants to join the
4:45 European Union. It was negotiating for
4:47 that under Yanukovych as well, although
4:49 the negotiations turned absolutely
4:53 putrid when the IMF started to make
4:55 extraordinary
4:57 demands for crushing austerity on
5:00 Ukraine. And that's
5:02 was the immediate economic
5:05 effect that caused things to completely
5:08 unravel and then go out of control.
5:11 That's 15 years ago.
5:13 But the point is
5:15 yes, Ukraine can join the European Union
5:17 except for a major footnote these days,
5:19 which is that the European Union seems
5:22 to be turning itself into a military
5:23 block. And so the question is, can you
5:26 really join the European Union as a
5:28 neutral country? Well, it turns out it's
5:32 possible to do so because there's
5:33 actually a precedent for that or several
5:36 precedents. Several of the
5:38 European Union member states are neutral
5:41 from a military and security point of
5:43 view. Ireland is a neutral country.
5:45 Austria is a neutral country.
5:48 Sadly, Finland and Sweden used to be and
5:50 they stupidly gave it up, not because
5:52 their publics demanded it, but because
5:53 they fell into line with the United
5:55 States in 2022.
5:57 But be that as it may, my third point is
6:00 that I say that Ukraine
6:03 should be able to be a candidate for EU
6:06 membership and Russia should agree to
6:08 that candidacy premised on it becoming a
6:12 neutral member of the European Union
6:15 modeled on Ireland
6:17 or Austria. And that means that you
6:19 don't slip in the back door that you're
6:21 a EU member and suddenly you're part of
6:23 a military alliance because the premise
6:26 of the peace is that Ukraine is not a
6:30 member of a Western military alliance
6:33 and that
6:34 can be consistent with EU membership.
6:37 Now
6:38 let me just add it may be that Ukraine
6:40 never becomes a member of the European
6:42 Union not because of Russian opposition
6:44 but because of EU opposition. There are
6:46 countless member states in the EU that
6:48 say hell no we'll never take them in.
6:50 They'll threaten our farmers. They'll
6:52 undermine our own domestic politics. So
6:55 I have no idea whether
6:58 Ukraine will actually become a member of
7:00 the European Union and my peace proposal
7:02 is not premised on that. It is premised
7:05 on the right of Ukraine to become a
7:07 candidate without Russia's objection.
7:09 That's the third point. Then the fourth
7:11 point is is quite a knobby point not a
7:15 naughty one a naughty one because it's
7:17 hard to unravel and that is of course
7:19 the territorial issue. And
7:22 the point I want to make about the
7:23 territorial issue that people need to
7:26 understand
7:27 Russia had no territorial designs on
7:31 Ukraine at all
7:33 at all from 1990 to 2014 never raised an
7:39 issue never said oh that's really part
7:42 of Russia. Oh that's not a sovereign
7:45 country.
7:46 All the claims made in
7:49 the West and in the Western narrative
7:52 about this war being the reconstitution
7:55 of the Russian Empire
7:57 are false.
7:58 The reason the territory came up at all
8:02 was because of the coup in 2014 and what
8:06 that presaged about a NATO membered
8:10 Ukraine and Russia's national security.
8:13 This is crucial to understand. Of
8:15 course, what happened with the coup was
8:18 that uh
8:20 immediately and not
8:22 not in a very hidden way, the Ukrainian
8:26 leaders started to opine that oh maybe
8:30 Russia should leave its
8:31 naval base in Sevastopol. Maybe that
8:35 lease that we agreed to should be ended.
8:39 Well, that was the whole point of NATO
8:41 wanting to get Russia out of the Black
8:43 Sea. Again, totally reminiscent of
8:46 Palmerston's core idea in 1853
8:50 which is that the Crimean War should be
8:52 fought to banish
8:55 Russian the Russian Navy from the Black
8:57 Sea. So this is just a pure replay of
8:59 history. So Russia, of course, wanted
9:03 and understandably wanted to secure its
9:06 military
9:07 core asset in the region, its naval base
9:11 and Crimea which has a long history, but
9:14 the history goes back to 1783 when
9:17 Catherine the Great put the the naval
9:19 base in Sevastopol for the in the first
9:22 point. Crimea was retaken by the
9:24 Russians after a hasty referendum. Okay,
9:29 that is never reverting by the way
9:33 because of
9:34 the essence of this being this little
9:38 game of the West
9:40 that misplayed in February 2014 to
9:44 exactly rest Russia out of the region.
9:48 When it came to the Donbas,
9:50 the Donbas immediately
9:53 rebelled against the coup
9:55 in in
9:57 Kyiv and said we demand our autonomy or
10:02 our independence. It wasn't clear
10:04 exactly, but we don't accept the
10:06 overthrow of our president uh this was
10:09 quite a plausible response to a coup
10:13 that had just taken place and a coup
10:16 heavily backed by the United States. Let
10:17 me just emphasize that point. This was
10:20 not a revolution of dignity. This was a
10:22 violent coup uh and a violent coup in
10:24 which the United States had his hands
10:26 all over it. Well, Russia uh
10:30 stepped in uh to uh call for a
10:33 negotiated end to the conflict through
10:36 the so-called Minsk process and the
10:39 Minsk II agreement which was reached in
10:41 February 2015 said that we don't claim
10:45 this territory. We don't claim the
10:47 Donbas. We don't want Ukrainian
10:49 territory, but this region should be
10:51 autonomous within
10:54 Ukraine because this is a
10:56 Russian-speaking, ethnically Russian
10:58 region and it should have autonomy.
11:02 And who was the champion of that by the
11:04 way? Angela Merkel. And very interesting
11:07 for me, uh I learned the background of
11:10 Minsk II, at least some of the
11:11 background when I visited Bolzano, Italy
11:14 uh a couple of years ago because Bolzano
11:17 is in South Tyrol, which is a
11:19 German-speaking part of Italy. It's a
11:22 German-speaking part because it was part
11:23 of the uh Austrian Empire and the
11:25 Austro-Hungarian Empire and it became
11:28 part of Italy after World War I.
11:30 And it created trouble, a German
11:33 minority area in Italy and especially
11:36 after all the disasters of World War II,
11:38 what to do with this? And the resolution
11:41 was to make South Tyrol in Italy an
11:45 autonomous region, self-governing,
11:48 German-speaking, but with the fiscal
11:50 arrangements and part of Italian
11:53 sovereignty. And it works beautifully.
11:55 It's a wonderful region. It's very
11:57 peaceful. Uh it works as part of Italy.
11:59 We had a great time vacationing there.
12:00 It's an absolutely beautiful place. And
12:03 when I spoke to the governor uh of the
12:05 region, he told me, well, of course,
12:08 Mrs. Merkel came all the time. She knew
12:10 in region. She's a German politician.
12:12 She came to campaign with the German
12:14 population in South Tyrol. And she loved
12:18 the autonomy arrangement, and she built
12:20 it in to her contributions to Minsk II.
12:23 Very interesting actually.
12:25 So Minsk II evolved in a discussion of
12:29 Germans and Russians how to handle the
12:31 Donbas. And the point I'm making in this
12:34 long digression is that
12:36 Russia was not claiming the territory at
12:39 that point. It was asking for peace
12:43 based on autonomy following a US-backed
12:46 coup in February 2014. Okay. The tragedy
12:51 is that Ukraine and the United States
12:56 absolutely opposed Minsk II despite
12:59 signing on to it, despite it being
13:02 unanimously adopted by the UN Security
13:04 Council. And so they did not implement
13:07 it. Ukraine was supposed to implement
13:09 political autonomy for the Donbas. It
13:11 did not do so. Who was supposed to
13:13 guarantee that? Germany and France in
13:16 the so-called Normandy process. They did
13:19 not do so because Europe has had no
13:21 foreign policy since 2008
13:24 in the Bucharest NATO summit when they
13:26 gave in to the United States. That's the
13:28 last day that Europe actually spoke the
13:31 truth about anything. So when it came
13:34 time to enforce the Minsk II agreement,
13:36 which was the responsibility of Germany
13:38 and France, they punted. They just let
13:40 it go. And
13:42 they blamed Russia, of course, for the
13:45 unwillingness of
13:47 Washington and Kyiv to honor an
13:50 agreement that they had just reached.
13:52 Okay. I say all of this to emphasize a
13:54 point that I think is crucial. This is
13:57 not been a war of territorial
14:00 aggrandizement. This is a war that
14:02 started because of the collapse of
14:05 inclusive security,
14:06 the expansion of the United States
14:09 through NATO, many ancillary actions by
14:12 the United States, most notably by the
14:14 way, unilaterally leaving the
14:16 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002,
14:19 thereby ending the stability of the
14:21 nuclear arms control and putting nuclear
14:24 I'm sorry, anti-ballistic missile
14:26 placements, the Aegis missile systems
14:28 into Poland and Romania. So all of this
14:31 came from
14:32 a uh collapse in Russia's perception of
14:36 inclusive security and Russia's state
14:39 security.
14:40 And there were not territorial demands
14:42 that were at the core of this at all.
14:45 This was not to recreate the Russian
14:47 Empire. And by the way, the phony
14:50 reading of Putin's essay on the
14:52 historical unity of Russia and Ukraine
14:55 is fascinating. If people which who
14:57 don't read by the way, if they would
14:59 read to the end of that essay, the end
15:02 of the essay says what will become of
15:04 Ukraine, of course, depends on the
15:07 Ukrainians. It's their choice. And so
15:10 the essay is the opposite of what people
15:11 say. It's not a claim that Ukraine
15:13 doesn't exist. It is a claim that
15:14 Ukraine is being used and manipulated
15:17 and the Ukrainians should make a wise
15:19 choice, which they did not make,
15:21 unfortunately, or were not allowed to
15:22 make. So the fourth point is territory.
15:24 What to do after the war? Now Russia has
15:28 claimed
15:29 uh of course uh Crimea, which I think is
15:33 never
15:34 even going to be an issue again because
15:37 it is at the core of this security
15:38 issue. And it is claimed for oblasts,
15:41 the two of the Donbas and Kherson and
15:44 Zaporizhzhia. And it says that these are
15:47 Russian territories.
15:49 On the battlefield,
15:50 parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are
15:53 under Russian control, parts are under
15:54 Ukrainian control. Luhansk is
15:56 essentially completely under Russian
15:58 control and most of
16:01 Donetsk is under Russian control, but
16:02 not all of it. What to do?
16:05 What I say is a little vague, but also
16:08 quite specific
16:09 uh and to nobody's liking especially.
16:12 I say that there needs to be an end of
16:15 the conflict and an armistice line. I
16:17 don't define
16:18 Uh and it doesn't necessarily mean the
16:20 contact line. It means an agreement that
16:23 on one side there is administrative
16:26 control by the Ukrainians and on the
16:28 other side there is administrative
16:29 control by the Russians.
16:32 Now,
16:33 this is unsatisfactory from all points
16:35 of view uh because the Russians say we
16:38 want de jure
16:40 legal uh
16:42 recognition of all the claims we have
16:44 made. Ukraine says we recognize nothing.
16:48 Our de jure claim is our 1991 borders
16:51 and nothing beyond that.
16:54 And my
16:56 my point, not quite throwing up my
16:58 hands, is to say the fighting should
17:01 stop
17:02 and a line should be drawn and I don't
17:05 claim that this will be recognized
17:07 juridically by either side, but that it
17:10 will be an armistice line that can hold.
17:13 This is not a great solution,
17:15 but I don't regard it I could not think
17:18 of anything better uh
17:20 that would uh work.
17:22 Let me mention a couple of points. I do
17:24 believe uh that uh
17:27 borders that legal borders matter and
17:30 should not unilaterally be claimed to
17:32 change.
17:33 Of course, there are ways that borders
17:35 can change under international law uh
17:38 through uh various processes, referenda
17:41 and so forth. So that is a point to
17:43 note.
17:44 But I don't see how the war can end
17:47 quickly
17:48 on a basis that is juridically agreed on
17:51 both sides, whereas I do believe that
17:53 the war could end almost immediately on
17:56 a line drawn that gives effective de
17:59 facto uh control uh of uh
18:03 according to where that line is drawn, a
18:05 so-called armistice line. So this is the
18:08 those are the four points. The last
18:10 one's the toughest uh but uh
18:14 just to end,
18:16 I'm so uh
18:19 so unhappy about emptiness
18:22 of the rhetoric
18:25 as we slide to more destruction,
18:37 only in backroom
18:40 discussions and to watch all of those
18:43 backroom discussions add up to nothing
18:45 except further destruction and a slide
18:48 towards the most
18:50 inane, dangerous, reckless rhetoric,
18:55 including grabbing Kaliningrad,
18:57 including oh, nuclear arms are a bluff,
19:00 I mean nuclear attack is a bluff and all
19:02 the stupid things that we know from
19:04 history
19:05 are the fuses that light the
19:09 the total wars that we're trying to
19:11 avoid. So
19:13 I hope that that was coherent, but
19:15 that's that's the proposal.
19:17 >> It was coherent and very comprehensive
19:19 and thank you Professor Sachs. Just a
19:21 very few comments because we're short of
19:23 time. Briefly, I remember those times in
19:25 1990 extremely well and I think one of
19:29 the fundamental problem, in fact in my
19:30 opinion the fundamental problem is that
19:34 we denied agency to the Russians in what
19:37 happened then. The events in 1990
19:40 happened because of decisions made first
19:43 and foremost by the Russians. They
19:45 decided in their own interests that they
19:48 wanted to end the Cold War. They wanted
19:50 to They wanted to do all kinds of things
19:53 that wanted They wanted major changes
19:56 within their own society and economy. It
19:58 was their choice. We didn't force these
20:00 things on them. They chose to have them.
20:03 That is one. Now, the result is that we
20:06 came very very close to achieving peace
20:09 in Europe, something we've not properly
20:11 had by the way since the end of the
20:13 Napoleonic Wars. Instead of acting to
20:16 secure
20:17 >> Or or maybe since the disintegration of
20:19 the Roman Empire in 476
20:20 >> Well indeed Well exactly. But instead of
20:23 working hard to secure peace, we told
20:26 ourselves that we won some great
20:27 victory, and instead of securing peace,
20:30 we worked to consolidate that victory.
20:34 Everything that has happened as a result
20:36 has flowed from that fundamental
20:39 strategic error. And
20:42 the expansion of NATO and everything.
20:45 if we can get out of this, stop thinking
20:48 in this way, and aim instead to secure
20:51 peace, and that obviously means
20:53 addressing the issue of NATO expansion,
20:56 which is central to this whole topic. In
20:59 other words, if we address the issue of
21:01 security and peace in Europe, then
21:04 everything else will follow and will
21:06 fall into place. These territorial
21:08 questions, which look so intractable at
21:10 the moment
21:12 and which look impossible to solve, will
21:14 then become easy to solve. And that is
21:17 something that people just seem to me to
21:19 find very difficult to understand. But
21:22 in order for that to happen, we need to
21:24 recognize in Europe and in the United
21:27 States, but mostly in Europe because
21:29 this is our continent at the end of the
21:31 day, that we made these critical
21:33 mistakes and misjudgments of the
21:35 situation in the 1990s and thereafter.
21:40 And that we need to pursue a policy of
21:42 peace through negotiation, and those
21:44 negotiations, if they are to be
21:46 successful, must be conducted in total
21:49 good faith, which means we must stop the
21:52 situation where people whisper behind
21:54 the scenes and tell Professor Sachs, we
21:56 know this is all wrong, it is all very
21:58 bad, but we can't actually come out and
22:00 say it publicly. We need to come out in
22:03 Europe and start to say these things
22:05 publicly. Political leaders who are
22:08 failing to do that are abdicating
22:11 responsibility and betraying peace. Now,
22:14 that is my one comment because I know
22:16 you are
22:17 under tight
22:18 deadline, Professor Sachs, but I want
22:20 you to just come in there and say what
22:21 you want to say there.
22:22 >> you are
22:24 totally without even an iota of any
22:28 qualification, completely correct.
22:31 As you described the situation since
22:36 completely, totally with your very
22:39 eloquent, clear statement of why we got
22:42 into this mess. Second, I want to agree
22:45 completely with the second point you
22:48 said in passing. This is not about the
22:50 United States at the end. This is about
22:52 Europe and it's about peace in Europe.
22:55 The US got us into this situation,
22:58 absolutely. And again, I have
23:00 recommended it for years and years and
23:02 years. If anyone wants to understand the
23:04 US mindset, read Brzezinski's The Grand
23:07 Chessboard. And he explains that Ukraine
23:11 is a geopolitical pivot on America's
23:14 chessboard. And what he means by that is
23:16 it's a pawn in America's game against
23:18 Russia and against China. But the point
23:22 is this is about Europe, and Europe
23:25 should have the
23:27 understanding of how to make peace and
23:30 how it let peace slip through its
23:32 fingers.
23:33 Third point I would add,
23:35 Germany
23:37 could
23:38 change everything. I don't know if I
23:40 don't think, and unfortunately it
23:41 doesn't seem like Mears has it in him to
23:44 do it, but Germany is actually the
23:47 principal
23:48 protagonist in this. And I say that not
23:51 just because it's the largest economy of
23:53 Europe, because it is at the center of
23:55 this historical drama. We could go back
23:58 to World War II, but I would
24:00 just start in 1990. Germany promised no
24:04 NATO enlargement, period. It did it for
24:07 a reason, for German reunification. It
24:11 was a quid pro quo, not in some sordid
24:14 way, but it was the way to make peace in
24:16 Europe. Germany has the highest
24:18 responsibility to set this right. And
24:22 I've written open letter after open
24:24 letter to Mears. Read your own
24:26 documentary history. Look at what
24:29 your predecessor, Chancellor Kohl, whom
24:32 I knew,
24:32 said face-to-face to Gorbachev. Look at
24:35 uh Hans Dietrich Genscher's Tutzing
24:37 speech. Take responsibility, Chancellor
24:40 Merkel, because you have not taken
24:42 responsibility, and your state has the
24:44 central responsibility within Europe to
24:47 get the record straight. And the fourth
24:49 point I would say is
24:52 Oh, it's what you said also.
24:56 Leaders of Europe
24:58 say to me,
24:59 Jeff, we can't say that right now. We
25:01 won't have a seat at the table.
25:04 They don't disagree
25:06 with the substance,
25:07 but we can't go on this way safely, just
25:10 what you said.
25:12 NATO expansion was wrong, dangerous,
25:15 provocative, got us into this disaster.
25:19 Leaders of Europe today know this,
25:22 and they need to take responsibility
25:25 before we have
25:27 total disaster. That's their job.
25:30 And
25:31 saying it secretly
25:33 or even what one of them said to me, but
25:36 Jeff,
25:37 uh
Judged by claude-sonnet-5.5-eu on 2026-11-14 21:58 UTC. A flag means “worth a look”; a person decides.