Asmongold TV - What if Russia does NOT agree to the ceasefire? | Asmongold

Episode Date: July 12, 2025

What if Russia does NOT agree to the ceasefire? Subscribe to Asmongold TV on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@AsmonTV Disclaimer: This podcast is an independent project created by a viewer using content from the YouTube channel Asmongold TV. The purpose is to make his content more accessible to those who prefer audio formats, helping more people engage with the ideas presented in his videos. This podcast is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially associated with Asmongold. All rights to the original content remain with Asmongold TV. If there are any concerns or requests regarding this podcast, please reach out. ------------ Keywords: gaming community, twitch clips, reaction videos, gaming culture, asmongold Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Are they willing to accept the ceasefire unconditionally? Well, I mean, we don't know the answer to the last question. That's what we want to know, whether they're prepared to do it unconditionally. We'll have contact with them today. There's already been contacts at different levels with counterparts, different members of the administration, and that will continue. But as far as the Russian reaction to it, that's really the question here. And that is, you know, this is a few hours old.

We're going to bring it to them directly. We're going to say that Ukraine is prepared to stop. all battlefield activity and begin the immediate process of negotiating an enduring end of the war and we'll see what their response is. If their response is yes. I think one of the reasons why this happened is they froze

the aid too. Because if they know America's not going to keep giving them aid, they're fucked. I mean, they just are. And so like, because it's already been going on for this long. Yeah, they basically had to do this. You know, we've made real progress and there's a real chance of peace. If their

response is no, it would be highly unfortunate and it would make their intentions clear. So that's what we're hoping to hear from them. And obviously, as I said, that this was not prearranged for them. So they're probably processing the news the same as the rest of the world. So we hope to have a positive. Yeah, they might not know what's going on. Why are the winning party on the battlefield except a ceasefire until their demands are met?

Because it might not be worth resources to continue doing it. And they could settle for something that's good enough and then stop doing it. Like, even if you're winning, winning also costs something. Like he's thinking about from Russia's POV, right? Like, I mean, there's a cost of winning and there's a cost of losing. Losing costs more, but

winning also costs money. It's like bullets are expensive. Bombs are expensive. With the voice of America, what would be a good G7 statement on Russia and on China? Well, I think the perfect statement would that the United States has done a good thing for the world in bringing this process forward,

and now we all eagerly await the Russian response and urge them strongly to consider ending all hostilities, so people will stop dying, so bullets will stop flying, and so a process can begin to find a permanent peace. I think the first step in all this is the acceptance that there is no military solution to this conflict. Neither side can militarily achieve their maximalist goals. Neither side can achieve them through the military side. The only way this... That's probably true. I mean, like, yeah, probably true.

It's a really good point. Yeah. It's like, this is just like you're not getting anywhere, they're not getting anywhere. Like, how much longer do you want to waste your money? What can end is through negotiation. That's the only way you're going to have peace is through negotiation. And so we need to start that process.

And it is hard to start a process when people are shooting at each other and people are dying. And so our hope is that we can stop that. all these hostilities and get to a negotiating table where both sides over some period of time with a lot of hard work can find a mutually acceptable outcome. That in the case of Ukraine obviously secures their long-term prosperity and security. Mr. Secretary, Tombein, if you just update us on Mr. Whitkoff's plans for Moscow and whether he'll be meeting with President Putin. And then separately, if you wouldn't mind elaborating on something that Mr. Walt said yesterday

about the specifics that you discussed with Ukrainians about what the end of the the war would look like. You had mentioned we're not going to get maps out and draw lines. But did you actually talk about territorial concessions? We had conversations. As far as Steve's trip. Yeah, I think Ukraine is 100% giving up territory. Like, I really hope that I'm wrong because I don't think that they should. And I think it's bullshit that they should have to. But I think that's what's going to happen.

I'm not going to make any announcements about specific dates, times, or even confirm such a trip. Suffice it to say there's going to be multiple. points of contact to the Russians to gauge. Are they willing to do this or not? And as far as the conversations that were yesterday, when you sit down with a counterpart like Ukraine, you know, we're not going to negotiate this publicly. We're not going to actually put out there sort of what we talked about because in any negotiation there's certainly an element where you don't want one side to be giving away all this leverage

from a public perspective. We had a broad conversation about what it would, but I think the bulk of our conversation was what a negotiation process would look like in terms of not the specific conditions, but rather the timing of it, sort of the steps they would like to see taken. The Ukrainians made very clear that this isn't just about ending a war. They need to get their prisoners of war back. They need to get the children back. They'd like to see an exchange of prisoners of war.

They'd like to see their children back. So there's all sorts of things tied to the humanitarian assistance is important as well. There are areas of Ukraine that have been badly damaged that require immediate assistance. So these are the sorts of things that we talked about as being inclusive in the negotiation process. So really the ball— Yeah, I mean, I think that makes sense. Children, yeah, of course, right? Somebody says early in his presidency, Vladimir Putin expressed interest in Russia potentially joining NATO.

In a 2000 interview with BBC, he stated that he could not envision Russia isolated from Europe and suggested that NATO membership should be considered if Russia were to be treated as an equal partner. Now, I'm not a very big conspiracy theorist, but— I think that to an extent I would not be surprised if maybe there is a possibility that a lot of these escalating tensions with Russia are just artificial in order to justify more money spent on defense. That's just me. Maybe I'm wrong. But I sure feel like that's convenient. Keep the machine working?

Yeah. and maybe not, right? Maybe not. Maybe, hey, hey, maybe they're actually bad and that's all, like, it's all true. But it could be a little bit of both. Who knows? I don't know. But like, and again, I just, all I'm saying is that I basically what my point is, is like, I don't trust the government at all. And I don't trust the military even less than I trust the government. And anything that the military does, I, I, I don't know, right? I mean, like, maybe, maybe not. Not orchestrated by, but definitely capitalized on. That's a good point. Yeah, I think you're right. Peace is horrible for military funding.

That's the same way to approach it. Yeah. Our conversation when we got to that stage of it was discussing the kinds of items that need to be on an negotiation agenda, even when we hopefully get there. He also mentioned security guarantees, which is something that there has been some reluctance for the administration. to elaborate on. Are you committing to security guarantees? Well, I think the point, no, the point to understand is that we're looking at is securing their long-term, what we want to see, like any country in the world, Ukraine wants their long-term

security. They want to make sure that this doesn't happen. And we all do. What is the point of spending all this time to get a ceasefire, hopefully, and then a negotiated end of the war, only to see it re-spark up again in about six years, four years, three years. No one's, we're not interested in that. They certainly aren't either. So I think the question really is more about a deterrence? Can Ukraine create a sufficient deterrent against future aggression against... I think that one of the best deterrence that they could do is having the U.S. do a lot of joint ventures in Ukraine that have a lot of United States people there. That would be probably the biggest deterrent from Russia attacking because they don't want to directly aggro the U.S.

Like that's, in my opinion, I think that's probably it. Future attack against future... The mineral deal? Well, I understand that. The world has a right to defend themselves, and no one can dispute that. So that will most certainly have to be part of the conversation. But again, I don't think there isn't a piece to secure until you have a peace. But there's no way to have an enduring peace without the deterrence peace being a part of it.

Can I just follow up on that? Yes. So occupy them? No, no, absolutely not. No, it's that we would work together with them. I think that would be a good thing. Yeah, of course. So let them join NATO like they wanted.

Fuck Russia. I don't know about that. The joint statement talks about European partners being involved in the peace process, but that's only attributed to the Ukrainian delegation. There doesn't appear to be U.S. support. Well, I think what it says in the statement is that they raised the need for the Europeans. But I've already said publicly, the Europeans have issued a series of sanctions against the Russian Federation.

And I would imagine that in any negotiation, if we get there, hopefully, with the Russians, that they will raise these European, the European sanctions that have been imposed upon them. So I think that the issue of European sanctions are going to be on the table, not to mention what happens with the frozen assets and the like. And so I think it's self-evident that for there to be a peace in Ukraine, at the end of that process, there's going to be some decision made by the Europeans about what they're going to do with these sanctions and so forth.

And so that's why I think they have to be necessarily involved in this regard. Now, whether they're involved at the front end of it or at the back end of it, it'll have to play itself out. And then obviously there's also all sorts of security promises that European countries have made to Ukraine, that that will also be, I imagine, a part of this conversation as we move forward. So we don't disagree with that statement. I think the statement just reflects that they raised it. But you back peacekeepers in Ukraine, which is something Russia is categorically. We'll see. I mean, there's different ways to construct a deterrent on the ground that

prevents another war from starting in the future. We're not going to go. in with any sort of preconceived notion. The bottom line is it needs to be something that makes Ukraine feel as if they can deter and prevent a future invasion. How that looks and how that's put together, that's what we're going to be talking about. If we can get to that stage, again, right now we're just trying to get to the stage where there's actual diplomacy happening. Here's what we'd like the world to look like in a few days. Neither side is shooting at each other, not rockets, not missiles, not bullets. That would be good.

Nothing. Not artillery. The shooting stops, the fighting stops, and the talking starts. That's That's what we want to see. What happens during that talking and how that evolves? I think we're going to have to be flexible and nimble and creative and patient and work hard at it and hopefully turn it into something that's concrete. You've covered, many of you have covered foreign policy for years. That's how these things happen and they're not easy and sometimes they're difficult to predict which way they're going to go in terms of the specifics.

Little Marcos come a long way. Yeah, it's actually crazy to see this. But we just want to get to that stage. I think he's really good too. For lack of a better term, a good problem to have, to have to have to have to to figure out how to negotiate a piece because we're actually negotiating a piece while the shooting is stopped.

Is the mineral deal essentially the security guarantee that you guys envision? And then the second question is, President Trump appealed to a lot of Americans during his campaign on free speech arguments and not suppressing speech, especially from the government. But your revocation of the green card to many is seen as one of the most anti-speech actions

a secretary could take with his. How do your response? Yeah, I mean, yeah, the first question was, again, the minerals deal. Yeah. The security guarantee? Well, I think that a minerals deal is something that I think is beneficial for both countries. Certainly one of the things that provides for Ukraine's long-term prosperity and security is vibrant economic growth and development.

Their GDP begins to grow and that gives them a tremendous amount of leverage and power and the ability to fund their own defenses. So I think certainly any economic development for Ukraine is positive for their own future. Obviously, if the United States has a vested economic interest somewhere, we're tied to them on an economic front. We're in partnership with them on something. We will have an interest in the future of Ukraine as well. I wouldn't count it as a security guarantee, but certainly if the United States has a vested economic interest. Us having people there and a bunch of our shit there is a security guarantee, basically.

it's not in it's not like in writing but it's implied that's generating revenue for our people as well as for the people of ukraine we'd have a vested interest in protecting it if it were to be challenged or threatened um on your first point when you enter the this is an important point and i'm glad you're asked the afghans when you come to the united states as a visitor which is what a visa is which is how this individual entered this country on a visitor's visa okay you are here as a visitor we can deny you that visa We can deny you that if you tell us, when you apply, hi, I'm trying to get into the United States on a student visa, I am a big supporter of Hamas, a murderous barbaric group

that kidnaps children, that rapes teenage girls, that takes hostages that allows them. It sounds like some great guys. To die in captivity, that returns more bodies than live hostages. If you tell us that you are in favor of a group like this, and if you tell us when you apply for your visa, and by the way, I intend to come to your country as a student and rile up all kinds of anti-Jewish student, anti-Semitic activities.

I intend to shut down your universities. If you told us all these things when you applied for a visa, we would deny your visa. I hope we would. If you actually end up doing that once you're in this country on such a visa, we will revoke it. And if you end up having a green card, not citizenship, but a green card as a result of that visa while you're here in those activities, we're going to kick you out. It's as simple as that. This is not about free speech.

This is about people that don't have a right to be in the United States to begin with. No one has a right to a student visa. No one has a right. Yeah, this is pretty much what I think. Yep. To a green card, by the way. So when you apply for student visa or any visa to enter the United States, we have a right to deny you for virtually any reason.

But I think being a supporter of Hamas and coming into our universities and turning them upside down and being complicit, and what are clearly crimes of vandalization, complicit in shutting down learning institutions. There are kids at these schools that can't go to class. You pay all this money to these high, price schools that are supposed to be of great esteem and you can't even go to class

you're afraid to go to class because these lunatics are running around with covers on their face screaming terrifying things if you told us that's true i mean they were acting crazy they were like it was not a protest but that shit was a rust base and a riot tended to do when you came to america we would have never let you in and if you

and if you do it once you get in we're going to revoke it and kick you out can ask about the Canada trip coming up uh the president has as i said i am just in astonishment that there's any pushback for this in astonishment but to again Hassan and the people that agree with them to their credit

if they can defend this guy and it's legal then he gets to stay but I certainly fucking hope he doesn't supporting groups like this you're a piece of shit they will terrorists the first state called in from a minister to the 51st state from an economic standpoint he says

if they became the 51st state, we wouldn't have to worry about the border and fentanyl coming across because now we would be able to manage that. He's made an argument that it's their interest to do so. Obviously the Canadians don't agree, apparently. Do you agree with that? Are you going to discuss that? Well, that's not what we're going to discuss at the G7. And that's not what we're going to be discussing in our trip here. So they're the host nation, and I, I mean, we have a lot of other things we work on together. We defend North America through NORAD and the airspace of our continent together.

So not to mention the issues of Ukraine and other commonalities. So we're going to be focused in the G7 on all of those things. That's what the meeting is about. It is not a meeting about how we're going to take over Canada. Are you concerned all about the reception that you like getting, particularly of the events? I don't know. What do you know that I don't know? Yeah. You've got terrorists the last 12 hours.

You've just seen this escalating trade war. It's a lot of stuff. all the other members in the G7. Yeah, so what's your point? Are you worried about alienating the Canadians, but they wouldn't work with the United States? Yeah, I mean, they've invited us to come. We intend to go.

The alternative is to not go. I think that would actually make things worse, not better. So it's a G7 summer. Huh? The alternative could be not to have tariffs or not to have the language of the president. No, those are policy decisions. And so at the end of the day,

the president's made those decisions. He's explained why. It's not just against Canada. It's not just against Mexico. It's not just against G7 countries. He's imposed steel and aluminum tariffs now on virtually the entire world. And the reason why is not to punish those countries. It's because he has outlined the need to develop a domestic capability.

If you don't have steel and aluminum, you can't build warships. You can't build airplanes. You're not an industrial economy. There are things we have to be able to protect, and there's a lot of unfair trade practices. A lot of countries out there who subsidize their industries so that they can gain global market share, so they subsidize the industries. They're operating at a loss. me while our industries are trying to compete fairly, and that's why you don't have steel

plants, and that's why you can't produce the aluminum. And that really threatens our national security in the long term. So these are national security concerns when it comes to steel and aluminum and some of these other products. But ultimately, the president feels strongly, and I personally agree, that we have made some decisions when it comes to trade policies that have led to the de-industrialization of America and have left us deeply vulnerable to any sort of interruptions in global supplies and or... I agree with this, by the way. I do. Not entirely. Like, I mean, you can't be self-sufficient with literally everything. Is it beneficial to do that? I'm not sure. But in a general sense, I do agree with that.

Being used to extort us, not to mention our ability to produce things that we need for our own economy and for our own defense. So that's what those policies are about. Every country in the world we expect will act in their national interest. The United States forgot that. President Trump is reminding us of that and getting us back to that. And I think it is quite possible that we could do these things and at the same time deal in a constructive way with our allies and friends and partners on all the other issues that we work together on. And that's what I expect out of the G7 in Canada. Can I just ask on Russia, did you have or Waltz have any contact with Zelensky while you were in Saudi Arabia? No, I did. I don't believe Mr. Walts did either, but I did not. But that was the team he selected and it was appropriate. It was his closest advisor.

It was their foreign minister. It was their head of security. So we felt that that was the counterparts they sent and to deal with us. And that's obviously pretty common in these sorts of things. Generally, the heads of state meets heads of state and appropriate counterparts beat others. I imagine he had to get back and he's the president of a wartime country. But we did not have any contact with it. That side-by-side of Zelensky before and after the war?

man that sucks that's crazy bro i thought it was bad for obama uh-uh man he's seen some shit yeah that was bad read anything into it other than he selected his team for these talks and the president selected his so was there any discussion with the ukrainians about how a ceasefire if russia agrees would be enforced and how would the u.s. insure a party yeah well the interesting thing about modern warfare is there it's easier than ever to monitor and i don't simply because there's so many eyes on the ground.

There's also all sorts of overhead, commercial satellite and the like. It would be pretty hard to hide drone strikes. It would be hard to hide missile strikes, ballistic strikes, artillery. So we feel like that is something that could be monitored. Obviously, in fact, the Russians say yes. Let's hope they say yes.

If they say yes, one of the things we'll have to determine is who do both sides trust to be on the ground to sort of monitor some of the small arms, fires, and exchanges that could happen. But those are practices that, that have become common in these, and I don't think that would be difficult to set up. We didn't get into specifics, but obviously the need to monitor a ceasefire is clear to everyone. Sir, just a quick follow-up on this question.

This is it. You haven't... Last question, sir. This administration has not hesitated to put a lot of pressure on Ukraine. You reduce their intelligence support in the middle of a shooting war. You temporarily cut off their arms, criticize them publicly. not you, but leadership in public. But Trump.

Are you truly prepared to apply pressure on Russia? Should it be recalcitrant and not agree to the terms of the ceasefire? I feel like they already have. I mean, we already have sanctions on Russia now. We've had it for years. Concrete action that this administration has taken to punish Russia since this comes to. Well, that's a couple points. To be clear, as far as I am aware, the United States has not provided armaments to

Russia. The United States is not providing assistance to Russia. Every single sanction that has been imposed on Russia remains in place. Every single sanction the President inherited has remains in place. Right. But, well, I mean, they're pretty sanctioned up. I mean, there's a lot of sanctions on already. So my point being is that there's been no steps taken to relieve any of these things. These things continue to be in place. But we don't think it's constructive for me to stand here today and begin to issue threats about what we're going to do of Russia says no. Let's hope they say yes. Yeah, exactly. And people want him to do that because it's good content, but ultimately, obviously, it's a bad idea to do that. But it's very good content.

I remind everybody and bring you back to the point. The president's desire here is to bring about a lasting and enduring peace in Ukraine. He wants the shooting and the fighting to stop, not just for 30 days, not just for 60 days, but permanently. To do that, both sides have to come to the table. We are happy. We are happy that the Ukrainians have agreed to do so. Now it is up to Russia to say yes. If Russia says yes, that's very good news,

and we will begin that process and do everything we can to move that process forward. If they say no, then obviously we'll have to examine everything and sort of figure out where we stand in the world and what their true intentions are. I think it'll be, if they say no, it'll tell us a lot about what their goals are and what their mind said is.

But I don't want to go into that before they've even answered us by issuing statements that are abrasive in any way. Our hope is that when we met with them last, they expressed a willingness under the right conditions, without elaborating on the right conditions, to bring an end to this conflict. That was our question when we met with them. I think I shared it with you that we're on our trip.

The point of meeting with them was to find out, is this a war they wanted to end, or is this a war that just wanted to continue to perpetuity until they achieved whatever goals they have in mind? And they expressed a willingness under the right circumstances, which they did not define, to bring an end to this conflict. So we have Ukraine ready to come to the table. Now we need to get Russia that come to the table. If they do and the shooting stops, I think that's a very good day in the world. Obviously, no one here is pretending that that negotiation is going to be easy or fast or simple.

But at least we've gotten to that point. If their answer is no, then... I mean, you got to respect it. I mean, like, I do. I'm glad that they're at least trying to do something, right? The dudes in flow. Yeah, he's farming, man. Yeah, he's well-spoken. Yeah, he's really, like, he's really improved. What would you bet on? What would I bet on? I would bet on it ends and Ukraine gives up some concessions and we have a minerals deal in place that maintains a degree of implied security guarantee by having more American investment in Ukraine. That's what my, like, you want to clip it? That's what my prediction is. Obviously, we'll have to deal with that.

And we'll have to at that point make decisions on that basis. We're not there yet. Hopefully the answer is yes. Okay. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Thanks, guys. There it is.

And the land Russia took over has the rare rocks. Well, then they can't have it. Yeah, then we need to get those rocks back. That's it. What will Russia give up? Probably nothing. Russia is in the advantageous position. They are.

They're in the advantageous position. and it's hard to, and like also they give up the war, stop fighting and stop bombing things, right?