TRIGGERnometry - Trump's Deal Will be the End of Ukraine - Andrei Illarionov

Episode Date: March 30, 2025

Andrei Illarionov is a Russian economist and public figure. He served as a senior policy advisor to Vladimir Putin from 2000 to 2005 but later became a vocal critic of Putin's administration. Follow Andrei on X: https://x.com/AnIllarionov SPONSOR. Go to https://get.stash.com/trigger to see how you can receive $25 towards your first stock purchase. SPONSOR. Go to https://shipstation.com and use code TRIGGER to sign up for your FREE trial. Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Substack! https://triggernometry.substack.com/ OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Shop Merch here - https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media: https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry: Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. 00:00 Introduction 08:45 Does Putin Want To Destroy Western Civilisation? 20:34 Trump's Approach To Negotiations With Putin 29:30 Why Is The US Envoy Repeating Kremlin Propaganda? 35:40 Will The Ukraine Invasion Be Brought To An End? 44:11 Will The Minerals Deal Give Ukraine Security? 49:08 Is The End Of Ukraine Inevitable? 01:06:00 The West's Lack Of Military Output 01:18:17 What's The Thing We're Not Talking About That We Should Be? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For Trump, Ukraine is irrelevant. Ukraine does not exist in these calculations at all. Because from this point of view, Ukraine belongs to the Russian sphere of influence. And that is why the business of Mr. Trump is just to silence Ukraine as much as possible. To silence Zelenskyy's to silence anyone. The argument from the Trump administration

is when we sign the minerals deal with Ukraine, that will guarantee Americans in Ukraine This is a kindergarten. I'm really sorry to say so. There is no economic success without security guarantees. Mark Lute, the Secretary General of NATO, he said publicly on record, seems to me he knows something, that the total military output of all NATO countries combined is 25% of Russian military output, four times less.

Andre Laronov, welcome back to the show. We had you on exactly three years ago to talk about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, what Vladimir Putin was doing. Our interest was you were someone who worked with Vladimir Putin closely for six years, and we talked about it then. And you messaged us recently saying that there are a lot of things being said in the English-speaking world that are not true and there need to be discussed, and it's something we agree with you on, by the way.

So what are you talking about? What's going on? What do you think needs to be talked about in a different way? First of all, thank you, Constantine. Thank you, Francis, for inviting me once again. It's nice to see you, and I need to confess that I follow your activities, trying to follow what you're doing, how are you doing. It seems to me you've got substantial progress since we met last time.

Your subscription rate jumped up, skyrocketed, so now your stars in the English-speaking world. you are not only kind of very popular and it's a fact of life, but you happen to be one of very few voices in English-speaking world that, from my point of view, continue to speak truth. Unlike many others, voices that somehow stopped to do it or have been under influence from Putin's slash Kremlin propaganda. And I can name only three sources that I follow that, at least continue to talk about war that Putin is waging against Ukraine, about Russia, about Ukraine,

about many other things, just, first of all, you, I would say Douglas Murray, and I would say Pierce Morgan, also from time to time, he's trying to somehow keep the line. And to my observation, all of you coming from Britain, and I just, why those only British war is, but not American voices. It's another topic for discussion for me. But it is shocking for me. I would not hide this, my feeling, that many, if not almost all, American voices

either became silent or started to reproduce Putin's slash criminal propaganda, especially concerning Ukraine, concerning Putin's aggression against Ukraine, concerning Putin's policy and so on. So that is why it's quite shocking, it's quite discouraging. And I would like to thank you for at least skipping this line and continue your stance and support for truth.

So that is why I think it would be useful. We can talk about those issues objectively, openly, honestly. even some people might not like what we can talk. Well, let's do that. Let's do that. And look, from our perspective, we don't have a line. I guess my, to the extent that I understand Ukraine and Russia, you know, growing up in Russia, living in Ukraine for some time, having family, having relatives, speaking to people in both countries about what's going on from the inside, speaking to people who are involved in various, you know, at various levels in government,

I'm just telling people in the West what I know and what I'm hearing. That's all I'm doing. And if I was hearing something else, I'd be saying something else. But I agree with you. One of the fascinating things, I'm not sure if you've experienced this because we're both Russian speakers, and I imagine we both consume Russian speaking media, is watching something become a talking point in Russian media, and then two weeks later or three weeks later or a month later, it appears in English-speaking media as this new thing.

And have you seen that pipeline happen? Now, first of all, I would say, suggest you're keeping the line, because this line to talk truth. Yes. But what you saw with your own eyes, what you understand yourself, not what Kremlin wants us to repeat. So that is why this is the line. So I'm trying to my extent to do exactly the same. So that is why what exactly I have in mind when I'm saying they just keep the line. As for your observation, so you put this...

kind of time pause, two, three weeks. Sometimes these posts could be different. For example, Putin for almost a year was talking about the Zelianzky dictator. So he was, he started to talk it from the last June. And all of a sudden, exactly same words have been repeated by Mr. Trump.

So, and when somebody mentioned, okay, so this kind of Kremlin's propaganda, he said, no, no, it is my own understanding. Okay, so just probably Mr. Trump did know that Mr. Putin was talking about for whatever nine months prior to that, but this effect of life. And after that, when Mr. Trump has repeated the story that, okay, Mr. Biden did not call me, did not talk to Putin for three-half years, which is clearly not true, because the last conversation between Biden and Putin was on December 30th, So that is why assuming his term in the office, it's in the very best case, three years. And three years when Trump said so, but a few days later, Mr. Whitkoff has repeated this story, that it was Mr. Putin told him, Whitkoff, that Biden did not talk to Putin for three and a half years.

So now we all of a sudden found these line of communications. So, first of all, Putin told Wittkov, Wittkov told Trump, and Trump repeated the lie that Putin told Wittkov and has been transferred to Trump. So that is why these lines of communications or timescale could be different, but you're absolutely right, that all of a sudden we found situations

that I cannot recall that Putin slash Kremlin slash Russian propaganda have been repeated and spread out in English-speaking world at the level unseen and unheard before. And we, unfortunately, we can hear all the time from such people like Professor Mischimer, Professor Sox, Tucker Carlson, Vice President J.D. Vance, from the son of the President Donald Trump Jr.,

and from President Trump himself. So this is shocking. Because never before we had a situation when the leadership of the U.S. administration would repeat consistently and persistently something that's completely untrue, completely wrong, and complete propaganda. Disinformation aimed at justification of aggressive behavior of Russia, of Putin, first of all, against Ukraine, against Europe, and against the United States, against the Western civilization. So Putin never hide it that his main goal is destruction of Western civilization. He awarded to these goal many, many his statements. His apparatus, his Kremlin entourage, the whole system of the current Russian government is working to destroy Western civilization, NATO, Europe, United States.

And just quite a claim. Can you give us some specifics? Like personally, I've never heard him say he wants to destroy Western civilization. civilization. What are you talking about specifically? I can refer you to just to many speeches, especially from the speech that he has given, on October 5th year, 2003 during the so-called Valdai Club gathering, in which he proclaimed, actually, it's public announcement of the global war against the West. And it is very detailed and very fundamental explanation that the West is doomed. And his...

Putin's goal, together with a big friend and colleague Mr. Xi from China, and to unite the other countries around the world, so-called multi-rateral, multilateral, whatever. Multipolar world. Multi-polar world. It's an old term, but they say this is a global majority. Even they know, say not global, world majority. They understand English very well, so that is why they're choosing right words in English to explain their position. So this is a world majority against the West, against

doomed, some kind of decadent West, and this is some kind of the noble mission of current Russia and current Russian regime under the leadership of Putin, with support from Chinese France, to make everything possible that the kind of the days of the West are numbered. that number of people from the Kremlin and from Kremlin onto Russia issued number of documents, including those documents that have been produced such people. I don't know, probably you know those names like Karaganov or Trinian. Those people have gone out of from think tanks around Kremlin.

They put a number of documents explaining there's kind of the essence of this global war against the West, led by world majority with the leadership of Russia with Putin at the head. So that is why it's nothing new. It's very well detailed. So I'm going to work out plan by the current Russian regime. They never hide it. They talk about regularly.

Even just a few days ago already just with the current US administration, Mr. Karaganov again, once again gave interview to BBC, I believe, the correspondent of BBC in Moscow explaining, no, we need to use everything possible to just subjugate Europe. Now he's trying to kind of before January 20th, he was talking about the kind of the main problem with the United States

actually with Anglo-Saxons so you don't forget about Brits as well. So that's the way they understand Anglo-Saxons as Americans and Brits. Now, within your administration, so they're kind of accurately trying to put aside American. and now talking about Europe with Brits, you are still there.

So don't worry. So you're still the goal of this regime. So that is why he's not hiding. Yes, he's going, yes, if it's necessary, we can use whatever possible, whatever resources or whatever instruments, including whatever weapons to reach our goal. It is not about Ukraine. It's not about Zelensky.

It's not about his behavior in the Oval Office or White House so how he treated the President of the United States or vice president of the United States. No, it's about absolutely different story about the imperial dominance of the Russian regime over Europe. And this is, by the way, it's not in use. It's a long-term policy of Soviet communists to establish dominance over Europe.

This is actually what's proclaimed by the I Lenin back in 1917, 1918. This was essentially the goal of the social called Bolsheviks march into Europe via Poland to Germany, to Italy, to Hungary. That was exactly what Lenin was talking in summer 2019, and after that, they prepared for this war for 20 years between First World War and Second World War, and the Second World War was organized by Stalin as a so-called Liberation March of Europe. that was only successful, but only half successful.

Only half of Europe happened to be subjugated by Soviet communism. And after that, in the late 80s and early 90s, with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the end of the Cold War, all of a sudden, all these countries that have been liberated themselves from the communism, So they wanted to join Western civilization.

So that must be reconsidered. That must be changed. There must be revenge. And that's exactly what the essence of the Putin's regime over the last 25 years versus Europe. And he was trying to achieve this for all this period of time. So he never hid it. So that is why it's just only deaf and blind

could not see what other purposes, what are the goals of Putin. So that is why he's doing exactly that. Antre, you're saying this to me, and I've followed this closely, obviously not as close as either of you at the table, and I'll be

honest with you, I'm profoundly shocked, because what you'll seem to be talking about, and forgive me for my historical illiteracy, it's almost like a Hitler-like figure. Somebody who wants dominance over Europe, that rings alarm bells in my head. No, but it's not, no,

why it should be surprised for you. That's exactly the policy of Putin what he was doing. Actually, I have analysis of a speech that Putin gave to the same Waldai club that I mentioned before back in the year 2014.

And I recommend you just, if you're interested, I give you a link to my analysis. It's in Russian, but it's not difficult to translate into English, because when I was speaking at some, whatever, English-speaking audience, I translated it into English, and it's available. So it was actually, I spoke with Atlantic Council in April year 2015, where spread this translation of this speech.

And I put speech of Putin in October year 2014, one part of the page, and the other, the other, the two letters that Adolf Hitler dictated in August 19, 39 to Mr. Chamberlain, then Prime Minister of United Kingdom. So, and I found the slightly more than 20 points where the words of Putin almost word by word coincide with Hitler's text. Sometimes stylistic is slightly different, but essence the same. but sometimes word by word. And it is striking

because those people, speech writers in Kremlin, who prepared speech for Putin in October 2014, my suspicion, they never read Hitler because it is not available in Russian. It is English or German, so you can see it.

And I doubt that even they would read it, they would try to emanate what Hitler said back in 1939. So they were writing what they were writing, what they think it's necessary and what would be suitable for Putin. And Putin read it publicly.

This is an official public speech that is still on the Kremlin website. Once again, it is more than 20 points that coincide almost word by word. Which means... Sorry, which means that it is striking. I agree with you that's a striking. The type of thinking,

the type of contrast, almost identical. of these two persons, because he was talking exactly about that. He was talking about Poland, Hitler. Yes. As Putin was talking about Ukraine. Hitler was talking about the Polish corridor, exactly as Putin was talking about Crimea and Northern Tahrir.

He was talking about the whatever humiliation that Germans experiencing under Polish rule, exactly as Putin was talking about the Russians experiencing accumulation on the so-called Ukrainian rule, and so on and so on. And he also kind of explained his vision for the rest of the world there as well. And about the idea how to divide world and, first of all, Europe, between big powers, between really big powers. But back then, he suggested to Neville Chamberlain.

Let's divide Europe. I fully understand your interest. I fully understand that your great power, the kind of British, Empire. I'm not going to fight with you. Let's divide the world. Let's divide Europe between us. What Putin was suggesting back in the year 2014 and after that many times in 2015, back then to Obama and after that now to Trump, okay, let's divide the world. Let's divide Europe. So you have your interest somewhere else. I fully respect your interest. But this is not your interest. No, okay, let's divide it. Let's give it to me.

that is the exactly essence of Putin that completely repeating not only Stalin's approach back then but Hitler's approach and nobody should be shocked about that this is just fact, this is a reality you can check yourself and anyone who watch us right now can take this text and read

and make this conclusion this podcast is brought to you in part by Stash saving and investing can feel impossible but we've It's not just a reality. It's easy. Snash isn't just an investing app. It's a registered investment advisor

that combines automated investing with dependable financial strategies to help you reach your goals faster. They'll provide you with personalized advice on what to invest in based on your goals. Or, if you want to just sit back and watch your money go to work, you can opt into their award-winning

expert-managed portfolio that pig stocks for you. Stash has helped millions of Americans reach their financial goals and starts at just $3 per month. Don't let your savings sit around. Make it work harder for you. Go to get. Dot stash.com slash trigger to see how you can receive $25 towards your first stock purchase and to view important disclosures. That's get. Dot stash.

com slash trigger. paid non-client endorsement, not representative of all clients and not a guarantee. Investment advisory services offered by Stash Investments LLC and SEC registered investment advisor. Investing involves risk. Offer is subject to T's and C's. So saying that, and I believe what you're saying, number one, that's terrifying. Number two, when you look at Trump's approach to negotiations with Putin, it casts it in an even worse light than before. Because you're looking at him and you're going, is this appeasement?

Right. This is that we're coming probably to one of the most important part of our conversation. I don't know what else we can discuss, but this is probably most important. But before moving that, at least I need to say that we can see what Trump himself doing and what his administration is doing domestically within the United States. Almost all, or at least definitely, a lot, I would support because I think it's absolutely reasonable, absolutely right, absolutely correct. Just defense from the invasion through southern border.

Absolutely correct. Restoration of freedom of speech, wonderful. All this elimination of these, what I was, DIA, just all these work-eism and so on, absolutely necessary. There are many other things that Trump administration is doing is absolutely correct and I fully support it. But when we're coming to the foreign policy

or international relation, this is a shock. Because it is not expected totally by me. It is not expected by many other people, actually. I never met anyone who understood it. And for example, Nair Ferguson, whom you definitely know, so he himself said several times over the last several weeks that he never met any person

in Europe who understand the Trump's policy towards Europe, an international policy. So now we're coming to the most important element, I hope in our discussion and probably of the current days, weeks and months. So what is the policy of Mr. Trump? What is his actually vision based on which he's trying to implement some policies. And my understanding that it's not an appeasement because for Mr. Chamberlain, it was an because Mr. Chamberlain was a person coming from the First World War, in which Britain, France and other countries lost a lot of people.

And that is why they understood that there is nothing worse than the war in which hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, have been killed without any reasonable explanation, whatever. So that is why their position was to avoid war at any cost. And that is why they tried to appease until some point, because after some point, even Chamberlain has changed his position. It was Chamberlain who announced, who pronounced the war against Germany, against Nazi Germany after invasion into Poland.

It was not Churchill. Churchill came later. So that is why even Chamberlain understood that it was a mistake of his position before, and he has changed his mind, and he has changed his position, and he brought Britain into this war, to this absolute adult. Right? So, but coming to Mr. Trump, whether we have here in Pismet, I would try to find different words that.

Okay. But definitely, it reminds impeachment policy of the late 1930s in Europe. Because the position of Trump, as I understand it, especially now after these two months of his administration, is a different one. Mr. Chamberlain was not in a position to divide world or Europe with Hitler or with Stalin.

It was not his position. Mr. Trump's position exactly that. He is looking for strategic alliance with China. Sorry, he's looking for strategic alliance against China because he considers China is the most important enemy of the United States. It was his position back in the first term and now terms. And he understands that the resources and capabilities of the United States are limited.

Europe is not a big ally in this potential battle with China. So that is why he is looking for potential allies. With all due respect to other allies, whom Mr. Biden tried to put into whatever the Quad organization, he does not consider them as serious resource. So that is why he's looking for Russia. And that is why he has arrived to idea, as I understand him once again, that Russia might play a role, whatever, deterrent, a lie,

whatever for, deterrent against China, a lie to the United States. So he's trying to play the so-called Nixon's policy vice versa. So Nixon's Kissinger policy was just to take China out of the Soviet Union to put them against, and that is why to deal with what they had considered the goal number one, the Soviet Union. So now Trump is once again, as I understand him, he's trying to reverse this game. He would try, we know that Trump likes Nixon very much. He considered to some extent his successor. in policy, he's trying to take Russia out of China to explode in the long-term battle against China. So that being the case, what it seems more and more, and please correct me if I'm wrong,

is that Trump is essentially seeing Ukraine as nothing more than a pawn because the most important to him is fostering American-Russian relations so that they can, then pressure China, and then they're united against China. China is more important to him than Ukraine. And as a result of that, he's far more interested in pursuing relations with Putin, and Zelensky and the fate of the Ukrainian people comes second. It comes second. Is that fair? Francis, I would just, generally, I would agree with that you say, it's not second. It's irrelevant. For Trump, Ukraine, Ukrainian people, and think is irrelevant. This is easier. something very easy stuff, or you use porn, whatever,

that can be given to Putin and actually must be given to Putin to satisfy him and just to lure him into the so-called alliance with Trump. So that is why for him it is absolutely, I would say just cynical, but in the world of politics, it's regular stuff. It's absolutely cynical. Ukraine means nothing for Trump. this is realist sphere of influence politics. It's a good of real politics as they're discussing.

This is a big guy. Look, we're big men. We control this part. You control that part. Let's divide what's in the middle. So that's a great power. So that is why Mr. Wittkov in his recent interview easily has said, okay,

the Ukraine is a false country. He repeated what has been said by Putin. This is what I was going to ask you about. Sorry, just to say, it is important to underscore that Ukraine, fate of Ukraine and not only fate of Ukraine, fate of Europe is not so, Ukraine does not exist at all. Europe may be secondary, as I would use your terminology, but Ukraine does not exist in these calculations at all, because from this point of view, Ukraine belongs to the Russian sphere of

influence, Russian sphere of control, and that is why the business of Mr. Trump is just to silence Ukraine as much as possible. To silence Zelensky is to silence anyone who, because it's the problem not of Zelensky. It's a problem of the very existence of Ukraine. So it is not relevant for Trump at all. So that is why, by

giving this gift to Putin, Trump is hoping that he would be able to create a new alliance with Putin, or at least to try to get him from China, and that is why to deal with China. So I'm just, it's

It's another story how it is mistaken, that it is impossible to achieve. That's another story. Well, we're talking about this. Yeah, but we're not talking about whether it's possible or not. But we're trying to reconstruct his conscious, his ideas, his mindset, and what we have seen and what we have watched over the last two months, and we arrived to this conclusion.

Okay. So one of the things, this, got a lot of traction in the media. There was a conversation between the American presenter, podcaster Tucker Carlson, and Steve Vitkoff, who is the US Special Envoy, who is in charge of negotiating a peace deal with Ukraine and also in Israel and Hamas.

And they talked about those two issues, but we'll focus on the Ukraine side of things. He said a lot of things in that interview that are just factually incorrect. He said that the fire, five areas that Russia controls, which it doesn't control fully, by the way, were given to Ukraine by Khrushchev, who was a Ukrainian. That's not true. They weren't given to Ukraine. Only Crimea was Khrushchev was not Ukrainian.

And not by Khrushchev, by Khrushchev, but not by Khrushchev, but not by Khrushchev, but the decision has been taken by Stalin. But Stalin died by that time, and so it was only in time of Khrushov, they fulfilled this. And it's not because, whether, Ukrainian-Russian relationship, but because of economic issues of restoration of Crimea after the war. That's an interesting different story, but it's completely misguided and completely falsified in the English-speaking media. Nobody's talking about that. I don't want to get too far into the details of that.

I think what I'm saying is you as an expert and me as a layman would both agree that there were lots and lots and lots of things that he said. Those are just two easy examples, which completely misrepresent the factual reality. what they do represent is the Kremlin position, right? So why is the U.S. Special Envoy saying things that have no connection to the truth but have every connection to Kremlin propaganda?

Why is that happening, Andre? No, it's, first of all the fact of unbelievable incompetence and outright ignorance of the facts on the ground. So but because he had been appointed on this position back then, whatever, in November or December, So he had at least some time to accumulate this knowledge. But it's clearly that he's not interested in that. So because it's not a very big business

just to have two clicks and to find out what is the ethnicity of Mr. Khrochev. It's just English-speaking Wikipedia is telling it's openly. It's not a rocket science. So that is why, and by the way, the question is he bragged, I mean just Mr. Whitkov bragged

that he spent almost eight hours with Putin, just to produce an impression on his English-speaking listeners. But the question is very simple. How many seconds he spent with Ukrainians? And the answer is very clear, zero. So that is why how he could be any envoy on this particular issue if he is listening to only one side, being completely ignorant in these issues,

never been neither before these travelists, to me, never been to Russia, never been to Ukraine, understanding nothing about this story, about history, about international relations, about security. He admitted just in the last interview that he has been duped by Hamas. Okay, so just he's on such an age that it's the kind of demonstrating such a quality is just only confirming that he is not suited for this job. before just the people on the other side, for example on the Russian side,

that people spend all life, sometimes 40 years, sometimes 50 years, starting these issues. They are incomparable, or he is incomparable to them. So that is why to manipulate him that he said that it is impossible, it is easy because he's from kindergarten.

He does not understand anything about that. Just you mentioned a couple of cases, but there is not only these cases versus Ukraine or versus those regions, or versus Khrushchev or versus what's going on. But just he said just, okay, if Iran, whatever, just he was talking about on different topics, that a plan of President Trump would be implemented.

So Iran would come back to international community and Iran would join League of Nations. It's on record. It's on record in this interview and in a transcript. So that is why, what are we talking about? It's not about whatever the names of the four or five Ukrainian regions, partially occupied by Russian troops. It's about basic knowledge about the current world.

It's not about United Nations. It's about League of Nations. So that is why, once again, we are dealing with a problem. Certainly, we have incompetence, we have ignorance, and we have a kind of, if people of such level, incompetent, ignorant, it's not a very big business to be, to, manipulate them, especially by those who spend all their life in that particular profession. And especially your argument is because actually, why not send someone like that in to negotiate?

Because ultimately what you care about is just get this wrapped up. It doesn't really matter how this ends. We need to deal with this quickly because we've got China to deal with. That's exactly the point, because the support that Mr. Witko has received from Mr. Vents confirm this logic because for them it is not important. That's irrelevant. What is going in Ukraine,

whether five regions or 15 regions or 50 regions, doesn't matter at all. Because for them, they have the kind of the main goal. The main goal, and by the way, Mr. Whitkov was some kind of courageous enough to explain the main goal is to have friendship with Russia, to have business with Russia, to have economic relations,

let's have energy projects, let's have projects in Arctic, Let's have a project in artificial intelligence. Let's have project in technologies. Let's have everything just to bring Russia together closer to the United States, regardless what price must be paid for that. Because for them, this is a goal number one. This is absolute goal.

Okay. Well, let's look, I think we should have this discussion fairly, which is to say, look, morality is morality, and we all have our own personal morality and right and wrong or whatever. But when it comes to great power stuff, you know, these considerations come in too. And why not have peace with one of the biggest countries in the world in trade and so on? My argument has always been that I think that if the Ukraine conflict ends in a way that doesn't produce long-term security for Ukraine, this will happen again.

The invasion that happened in 2014 and in 2022 is likely to be repeated again. because there's no reason why I wouldn't. And Steve Whitkoff says, well, no, they've got the regions that they wanted. Why would they keep going? That's not very persuasive to me. What do you think? Your logic is understandable,

but you're thinking that it will be peace, at least some short-term peace. I don't think that there will be any short-term peace, because all these negotiations would lead to only one possible result to capitulation of Ukraine. and either Witkoff or Wenz or even President Trump, in many their comments,

are hinting on this particular outcome. Just for them, it would be not a very big surprise, not very big shock. And the capitulation of Ukraine, because what they are talking about, the whatever, ceasefire and so on, with stop of providing military aid or intelligence or whatever means. because stopped with mobilization

or all those efforts to bring necessary people into the armed forces of Ukraine mean that Ukraine will be subjugated. If Ukraine will be subjugated, and this is an obvious result of these efforts because Putin has proclaimed his goal about Ukraine, not now, not in yet 2022, as people are talking about last year, not in year 2014 with occupation and annexation of

He proclaimed in year 2003. So it is absolutely irrelevant with Zelensky or not Zelensky, with Poroshenka, not Poroshenka. With this regime in Ukraine or not this regime, Ukraine. It is not related with NATO or Ukraine in NATO membership or this map to NATO. Nothing. In year 2003, Ukraine was the closest partner of Russia and the opinion polls in Ukraine showed the high support for whom among political leaders.

among Ukrainians. The highest position was not Mr. Kuchma, the president of Ukraine back then, nor Mr. whoever would be there. It was for Putin. Ukraine was completely pro-Putting back then in year 2003. So that is why it was not a problem of any discussions or any problems or battles

between Russian and Ukraine. It was imperial ideas of Mr. Putin when in year 2003 he proclaimed that he has territorial claims to Ukraine. And he started this provocation at Tuzla Island in the Strait of Kyrj, between Black Sea and the Sea of Zof. So it was on September 17th, yet 2003, when Putin collected the all military diplomatic and intelligence community in small city, Yeysk, of Krasnodar region in Russia, where he proclaimed that, okay, we need to military diplomatic, solution to the territorial issues that we have between Russia and Ukraine. Nobody ever was talking about NATO back then in Ukraine or anywhere else. So Ukraine was pro-Putin, pro-Russian back then.

So that is what a long imperial project to subjugate whole Ukraine. So that is like, what will happen if let those negotiations for ceasefire over peace will succeed, according to efforts thanks to efforts of Mr. Witko-Wenz or President Trump. If Ukraine will be subjugated by Putin, so that is why the armed forces of Ukraine, which is now about 800,000 of military, very well-trained, reasonably equipped, battle-hardened, would join Russian army.

Certainly with some cleansing for officer corps, because some kind of the patriotic Ukrainians will be cleansed from this army. And that is why Russian army, which is now, I mean the battle forces, 1.5 million will be roughly speaking 2 million or 2 in half or whatever, just between that. And now we can look into the military forces

of European countries. The largest will be 200,000. What could any European countries or all those European countries together to do with the two best, most experienced armies of the current day. Russian and Ukrainian

combine. Nothing. What they could do for example, in defense of Baltic countries, nothing. Now, Baltic countries have no doubt. So just this Article 5 does not apply to, with the current US administration does not apply to

Baltic countries. Nobody would do anything. Why do you say that? Why do you say it doesn't apply? It's not me. It's Baltic countries. They came to this conclusion after these two months. I talked a lot to people in the Baltic countries. They came to absolute conclusion that they would not be supported by the United States. And that, by the way, United States,

there were main security guarantees for Europe, not for Ukraine. Now we're talking not about Ukraine, about Europe. And now all of a sudden, Europe recognized that they don't have U.S. support. You might not have U.S. nuclear umbrella over Europe, and that is why they are left alone in front of the potential, not a potential, real aggressive. So that is why, coming back, what would lead to these

so-called negotiations about ceasefire. So at the gate of Europe, there will be largest, most experienced in the modern warfare army combining Russian forces and Ukrainian forces. Why? It's necessary to wait until year 2030. Why? It is necessary to use exactly this window of opportunity of this current administration that is proclaimed that it might withdraw from Europe, at least, the relations between the US and Europe would be in a different level. So no reason to wait until yet 2030, especially if Europeans are going to be ready by yet to 7030. So that is why for opportunity will be absolutely clear. It is not sorry to wait until another five years. It is necessary to do it right now.

Chaos comes in all shapes and sizes. Last week a guest showed up late because they couldn't find the studio. And we had to juggle schedules on the fly. Talk about stress. But here's the thing. While some chaos is unavoidable, your e-commerce business doesn't have to suffer. That's where Ship Station comes in. Ship Station simplifies order fulfillment by letting you manage all your shipping needs from one easy dashboard.

Whether it's automating repetitive tasks or finding. the best carrier rates. Ship Station helps save time and money so you can focus on growing your business. As someone who runs a business, I don't run it shut up. I understand how critical it is to streamline operations and stay ahead of the game. We endorse Ship Station because it's a powerful tool for any business owner. It scales with you, no matter how large your business gets, and offers discounts of up to 88% of UPS, DHS Express and USPS rates, and even 90% of FedEx. Those savings add up fast.

Over 130,000 companies trust ShipStation to keep their fulfillment running smoothly. And it's easy to see why. Start simplifying your shipping today. Go to Shipstation.com and use a code trigger to sign up for your free trial. at shipstation.com co-trigger. Ship station. Make ship happen. Andre, look,

the argument from the Trump administration is when we sign the minerals deal with Ukraine, that will guarantee Americans in Ukraine, that will guarantee American financial interests in Ukraine, boots on the ground, that will therefore mean that Russia won't want to invade because they won't want to antagonize American interests, American business interests, therefore guaranteeing Ukraine safety.

What do you say to that? Francis, we need to distinguish between economic interest and boots on the ground. Boots on the ground is military. Trump never said that military would be. That's a very important. Contractors and things like that. Sorry, that's right. This is a kindergarten.

I'm really sorry to say so because everybody knows. And this is the history shows that whoever will be in the so-called economic interest and business interests, it is not deterrent for intervention. By the way, in Donbath, there was many American companies back then in yet 2014. What happened to them? Were they served as a deterrent for Putin to attack Donbass?

No. And all those assets of those American companies, for example, Cargill. Cargill was in Donetska Oblast, so all they have been taken by Russians and by separatists, and they have been just, either robbed or some kind of appropriated this. And nobody, neither Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump,

said any word in defense of those American companies and American property on these occupied territories. Same story will be for the rest of the world. So this is a rule. It's actually not only in Dombas, not only in Crimea, not only in Ukraine, everywhere. So Alexander Sergeiich Pushkin, the famous Russian port, once said, Very important. I will say it in Russian. All-Cupu, said Zlahto.

Which in English would be translated. Okay, I'm ready to buy everything, says gold. So that is a business interest. But the final word will be said by Bullock, by steel, by military force. But the final word remains for military force. Military force has the final word. Final word, yes.

And if we look around, so just only military guarantees provide necessary conditions for future economic growth. Why South Korea became such a wonderful example of economic growth? Why it became a miracle, economic miracle? Because U.S. forces were having boots on the ground between 1950 to 53 during the Korean War and after that, Korean troops, U.S. troops did not leave South Korea. Why Western Germany became such an economic miracle success and so? Because U.S. troops were on the grounds, boots on the ground, and Western Germany became member of NATO. Why Albania, the poorest country in Europe, became now the economic tiger over the last quarter of century? Because American troops on the ground,

and because Albania became member of NATO. It's only one way. First of all, security guarantees in a form of U.S. troops or military alliance like NATO that can guarantee potential participation of U.S. troops and other troops and only after that economic success. There is no economic success without security guarantees. Just one example.

You know what example? Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump himself. Before he became U.S. president, even the first time, he was a very well-known kind of real estate developer in the United States. He was interesting in participating in different projects around the world. He was considering the participation in Russia. He was even traveling to Moscow looking for potential acquiring hotel or maybe some other assets. Back then, in 2012, if I'm not mistaken.

what his decision was too risky. It was him, Mr. Trump, who was not courageous enough to invest in Russia in 2012 before occupation and annexation of Crimea, before this full-scale intervention against Ukraine. He himself taking the correct decision because he understands, and he understood,

that this is too dangerous. For himself, he understands this is dangerous. Why he think that other people will be so stupid that would invest in the country that does not have security guarantees. I mean, that's a very good point. That's a very good point.

And what it illuminates, Andre, is to me, listening to what you're saying, is this the end of Ukraine then? Is this inevitable, do you think? Let me answer to your question, with kind of the kind of another question to you

or just, in 1948, on May 14th, if I'm not mistaken, there was a proclamation of independence of Israel. Immediately, armies of five countries intervened into Israel with a very clear

goal. It has been pronounced destruction of Israel and physical elimination of Jews and their territory to push them into the sea. We all know, though. And Israel was alone. Israel was not a member of NATO and still not a member of NATO.

There was no allies in Kazakhstan. And for Israelis, there was no way how to fight back, just only one way, because it's a way for survival. And they are still in the same position for almost 80 years in a row. And they have regular attacks on them. Recently, we all know this October 7th. And after that, just from Hamas and from Hezbollah and from Houthis and from Iran and so on. And they're fighting for their survival. So, but back then in 1948, somebody would say, okay, is it end of Israel?

Yes, maybe they already decided. But Golda Mier told his American colleagues when she was traveling through the United States collecting money for defense of Ukraine, for Israel. If you give us money, we will use this money to the United States. We will defend ourselves. If you would not give us money, we will defend ourselves even with our fists, without weapons. But we will never surrender. Actually, he borrowed this phrase from Winston Churchill. Former United Kingdom Prime Minister who said in the darkest hour back in June 1940, we will fight on the sea. We will fight on dunes. We will fight everywhere. Even in this, however I would say almost an inconceivable case that we would need to evacuate islands,

meaning probably the royal family, maybe general staff, maybe army, probably to Canada from the islands, we would never stop to fight. We will fight until we will win. We shall never surrender. What Mr. Churchill said back in 1940, what Goldemir would say, In the late 40s, there is only one way for Ukrainians to fight,

and they should never surrender. Because if they surrender, they will subjugated. There will be genocide for patriotic people of Ukraine, as it has been done in the Western Ukraine after the Second World War with all those fighters by Soviet troops, by communist troops, by Enkavad. 10% of Western Ukrainian population have been killed, 10% of the Soviet. You know who most, what is the highest ratio of people being killed during these three years of full-scale aggression of Putin against Ukraine? No.

We have a statistic, certainly it's not full, some kind of estimates, but nevertheless several organizations are doing this research. BBC, Medusa, Mediason, some other, there is estimation for different regions of Russia. And we know that's a fact of life. the highest, the lowest rate of conscription and certainly being killed among Moscowites, among people from St. Petersburg and from Chechnya, Chechen Republic, because there's a favorite region of Mr. Putin,

certainly Moscow and San Peazibuque, just to preserve political stability in the capitals and Chechnya because of his special relations with this Lord Kadyrov in Chechnya Republic. But the highest rate of people being conscripted, and been killed in ethnic regions of Russia, like Burrata or some Dagestan or some other, or some poor Russian regions,

because of the political weight of which is not very substantial. But the highest rate of people being conscripted and been killed, not there, not even Burietia, the seven times higher the rate were in same regions that Mr. Wittekhav was not able to recall in Luhansk and Donetsk, because those Ukrainians who happen to be on occupied territories from yet 2014 occupied by Putin, they have been forcefully conscripted to the so-called Russian army or whatever, popular militian people's militia, whatever, and then are part of the Russian army.

They have been used as a meat forder or whatever kind of meat grinder. Meat grinder. Cannon fire. Yeah, can afford it against Ukrainians. And the rate of people being killed seven times higher than in the worst Russian region. So that gives everybody indication what would happen to Ukrainians who would decide, or it's so many Ukrainian soldiers been killed. That is why we cannot tolerate anymore.

We need to have some kind of peace or ceasefire. let's have a peace with Putin. Okay, this territory will be taken by Putin, and those people will be conscripted and be used against either Ukrainians or Europeans. That's a tradition. This is the technology of imperial power. To conquer the new territory,

to conscript these people from this territory, and to use this for new imperial aggressions and for new conquest. That's exactly what has been used by the Russian Empire through the whole history, that's exactly what have been done by Soviet regime, by Stalin's regime. When Stalin attacked Poland,

eastern Poland in 1939 and occupied so-called Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, those people who live there, they have been immediately conscripted into the Red Army, and they have been used as the cannon fodder.

Cannon fodder, exactly. And the first one was in Soviet-Fer-Ferish war, the so-called winter war. In 1939, 1990, the heaviest losses were for divisions formed from Ukrainians in the western part of the country immediately. So that is why now those who are so calling for, okay, let's have ceasefire because we need to keep Ukrainians from being killed. This is an invitation to kill Ukrainians at much higher industrial scale,

incomparably higher than it is today. So right now, the armed forces of Ukraine is the only available security guarantee for Ukraine itself, for Ukrainian civilian population. This is the only one. So the Ukrainian leadership, whatever, Zelensky, whoever, they're talking about some additional security guarantees like NATO membership or military alliance

or whatever long-term missiles or, let's say, it's kind of, the weapon that have been taking from Ukraine in 1994 due to Budapest memorandum. But that was a deterrent, that was a security guarantee, against aggression. If there is no such security guarantees, that is why the only one security guarantees

guarantee left for Ukrainians is armed forces of Ukraine. And Putin understands that very well. That is why his idea is to destroy army of Ukraine. That is why he's talking about the stop of military aid, stop of flow of intelligence information, stop of all efforts to

fill the ranks of the armed forces of Ukraine. So Putin is smart compared to his partners from the other side. I take your point. So I guess the question is, Andre, what are we meant to do? If it was up to you,

what would be done? Oh, it's up to me who I am. Just tell me the position. Well, this is why I was going to flesh out Francis' question a little bit. I think we should all accept whether we like it or not that elections have consequences. The president of the United States is President Trump.

That's not going to change. The vice president is J.D. Vance is not going to change. I imagine none of the other people around are going to change. So this policy of America will continue. The only question therefore remains is actually, based on what you're saying, what does Europe do about this? Exactly. Because now it's absolutely clear that in this new geopolitical environment, this is absolutely this tectonical shift, it's not even the volcano eruption. This is earthquake in international relations, in the security, ant rush, whatever, just something that we did not have for the last 80 years.

Actually, from even longer from the signing Atlantic Charter by Churchill in Roosevelt back in August 1941. So that is why it's absolutely clear that Europe is alone without the United States. So that is why Europe must decide. So whether Europe will try to defend itself, including Ukraine, because it's part of Europe, and actually with the largest, strongest, the most powerful army on the continent, or not. If not, it means that immediately Europe will find itself in much, much, much weaker position. Once again, we were talking about this much more powerful army on the east with readiness to attack anyone from the Baltic countries,

whatever, until the whatever 97 division line or whatever, just without any resources that Europe can provide. But European countries have nuclear weapons as a deterrent? Look, nuclear weapons is a very important stuff, but first of all, there are only two countries, now Britain and France, and the number of those assets is smaller than Russia has, it's one. Second, it means it immediately poses the question

about the spreading of nuclear weapons around the world. Because in this new situation, because the Budapest memorandum was an instrument that could show to the rest of the world that it is possible to have international agreements that countries would not acquire nuclear weapons and at the same time won't be attacked. This experiment failed dramatically, openly.

That's the only lesson that anyone could learn from this experience that it is absolute necessity to acquire nuclear weapons. This is the only deterrent that can be used from any potential aggression. I've made this point. So that is why Ukraine, Poland, Germany, Turkey, Iran South Korea, Taiwan, many other countries that are, come on. If those international institutions are irrelevant

and became irrelevant because the big, the great powers like the United States, first of all, the United States, just made them irrelevant. So the only way how can we defend ourselves is just to acquire nuclear weapons. So that is why this is the strongest argument for spreading nuclear weapons around the world. I agree. I made this point recently,

and I think it's actually an incredibly obvious point that no one, other than you and me, I've not heard anyone talk about this, even though it's so obvious. But nonetheless, you're saying if the Americans let Ukraine be subjugated, the Ukrainians will be added to the Russian army, and then that army can be used against Europe.

And what I'm saying is European countries have nuclear weapons they can use to deter that. That's the comfort that a lot of Europeans will take and they will say, well, actually, we don't need to do anything. We've got nuclear weapons. Britain and France, we'll be fine. No, it's absolutely necessary. That is why I understand that the just now, Brits and French are talking with Germans because the very obvious first step is just nuclearization of Germany. Nobody would think about after the Second World War.

And the person who made it possible, even just thinking and conversations, and I could not exclude that there will be actions, is a general. as the current US administration. Nuclearization of Germany, nuclearization of Poland, nuclearization of Ukraine, nuclearization of many other countries, including nuclearization of Iran.

Because what would be the best way to deter anyone, including the United States, from attacking Iran, is just nuclear weapons? It's a good point well taken, but I'm saying something else, which is your claim

is that if Ukraine is forced to sign a ceasefire that leads to its subjugation, Europe will then be attacked. And what I'm saying is Europeans won't be attacked, or at least people will argue, Europeans won't be attacked, because Europe has the nuclear deterrent. No, because right now,

the French nuclear is being used for defense of France. British nuclear weapons is just for Britain, not for the whole continent, because the nuclear deterrent and nuclear umbrella for the whole world. continent was provided by the United States. Now only if this umbrella is being taken away, so new question appeared who would defend the whole European continent. And that is the subject of discussions that are going right now everywhere. So that is why we don't know

what will be the result. I cannot exclude some potential outcome that we we touched a little bit about. But it means that it means much faster, immediately, spread of these nuclear technologies and missile technologies. And it is exactly what Putin so officially proclaimed that he's not interested or some kind of his so-called afraid that missiles would be placed on Ukrainian territory. Ukrainians never thought about it. It was only in imagination of Putin.

But now it will be self-fulfilled prophecy because it's exactly the way how Ukrainians could defend themselves. So that is why we cannot forecast everything that might happen, but it is absolutely clear that Ukrainians would be acquire or produce themselves with potential collaboration, however, just the crucial technologies, military capabilities that are necessary for their defense and for the defense of the European continent. This is the only way to do it.

And the same story for Europe. Just recently, three Baltic countries, Estonia, Latvian, Lithuania, so I'm going to work out from Ottawa Protocol for landmines. Absolutely clear, because they are not interested in being attacked and subjugated by forces from the east. So that is why they're digging and building the fortresses, fortifications on the eastern border. That is why Finns are doing a lot for strengthening their defense. And as a also necessary step, I'm going to... Obvious step is with just formation of new military alliance.

Either within NATO or outside of NATO or partially NATO outside of NATO among so-called France states. France states, which is Ukraine, Poland, Baltic countries, Finland, might be Sweden, maybe, might be Norway, might be Denmark, with Brits or not, Brits, depends. But for them, it became issue of survival, which did not exist, we as a good. Because three years ago, and over three years, it was a general understanding that in the time of very substantial European crisis or international crisis, United States might come or will come for support. Now there is nobody has such a belief. No, that belief is completely undermined. And that is why they need to do something themselves.

I find this incredibly worrying with the knowledge that I have at the UK, which has pursued a policy of demilitarization, de-industrialization, and as a result of that, we simply don't have the capacity to take on any type of army, let alone the Russian army. I mean, we just don't have any type of army anymore, really. Francis, I completely agree with your observation, but I would probably make it even worse because I'm trying to use not only emotions but also facts.

Just several facts. Last year, about a year ago, there was a publication from the military sources here in the United States that was saying that United States, not only UK, United States is producing artillery shells, 155 millimeters caliber, three times less than Russia. Once again, US versus Russia.

GDP of the United States, they claim that maybe 10 times more than Russian GDP, but the output of artillery shells three times more in Russia than in the United States. You know how many artillery shells United States sent to Ukraine during the three years of war? I know, I'm just following these events. Three million. You know how many artillery shells. shells North Korea gave to Putin during 1.5, 1.5 years, so twice shorter, 6 million.

So, North Korea gave Putin twice more artillery shells of high caliber 152, 155 millimeters, than the United States to Ukraine. And now, United States, they have stocks, are empty. They cannot give more. Just think about that. Just think about that. It's not even comparing United States towards Russia,

but United States towards North Korea. Three years ago, nobody who would say something that will not be considered a sane person because it's absolutely out of any understanding. But this is only beginning. Just together, United States in Europe, output of artillery shells today's is less, It's about 54% if I recall correctly of the output of artillery shells in Russia alone.

So just essentially NATO countries. Putin back in November last year in Bishkek, if I'm not mistaken, had said publicly that Russian output of missiles, of all missiles, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, is 10 times more than NATO combined. And he added that this year, next year, because he was talking last November, so in 25, so this output would increase 30, 35 percent more. So we can take cautiously Putin's words because it might be propaganda as well, but some kind of numbers less, we need to see this.

But now we move to Mark Ruta, former Prime Minister of Netherlands, and now the Secretary General of NATO. And he's talk at Munich Conference on Security last month. What he said? He said publicly on record. Seems to be he knows something. That the total military output of all NATO countries combined is 25% of Russian military output.

Four times less. So that is why what you are talking about, about UK, you're right. And your observation has been confirmed by number of publications, facts, and so on. So what conclusions might be made from

these facts and numbers? One option is to surrender and will be peace. Like on the cemetery. It's not only for Ukraine, it will be for UK, for the whole Europe, or the different approach. Your

former Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, reminded us that he can promise on only whatever. Blood, sweat and tears. Exactly. But this is a very clear challenge. And that is why up to European countries, up to the UK, up to the United States, is it to take this challenge or to surrender. So we know the answer from Mr. Churchill, never surrender. Okay, maybe some other generation, maybe some other politicians will take a different approach.

We don't know, but we know what can be done in this regard. And we remember what has happened with the United States in back in 1941. US was not yet in the war when Roosevelt signed, I'm going to approve this land lease program. And during 1941 before December 7th, before attack on Turtle Harbor,

the military output of the United States increased several times. And they started to provide this military ammunition to, first of all, to the United Kingdom. and only after that to other participants in this war. So this is a very clear challenge. It's up to the European countries to decide. By the way, just if we go back not only for European countries

and not only for Second World War, just four years ago, Ukraine, whether Ukraine was wanted, whether it wanted to participate in the war in Russia, no. Look on this, it's unbelievable. they were spending on military purposes, some kind of less than 2% of GDP. Even they have these war in Donbass. Even the kind of many Ukrainian military persons have been killed there. All arguments in the Ukrainian society for either Parashenko government or Zelensky government, let's increase military expenditure.

It is absolutely unsustainable. No. And Poroshenko and Zelensky said, no, no, we are for peace. and Zelensky was won his presidential election with the slogan, I will bring peace, exactly like Mr. Chamberlain coming from Munich. So I'm not going to fight. So I'm going to have peace.

Because what is necessary? Just to stop fighting, stop shooting. It was his words. What is the level of military expenditures right now in Ukraine? More than 32% of GDP. Because there is no way to survive. but to spend on security, on defense. So same challenge is in front of European countries.

Now, Poles spent maybe 4.3% Lithuanians are promising to increase up to 6% of GDP, but it's incomparable what was level of military expenditures during the Cold War for those four countries of Europe or the United States. This is a challenge, it's a kind of choice. either you will be subjugated and you will surrender and that is why another Gulag will be built on territory of your countries and your people will be conscripted and killed in new imperial wars

or other people who do not like to be there just will be put in Gulag or exterminated as all political elite of Baltic countries or Polish elite or elite in the West of Ukraine or to fight. There is no other ways. Well, Andre, it's a very serious things you're saying. I think people will be scared but also confused, and it's very early days in the Trump administration.

I will say very sincerely that I hope you're wrong about everything you're saying. But sadly, I'm afraid we're going to just have to wait and see. You know, I completely understand your point. So in 2008, when there was a Russian-Georgian war, When Putin put his troops against Georgia and occupied Abkhazia in South Ossesha, Georgian regions. So Mr. Saakashvili said, the next will be Crimea. I was thinking about that, I said, yes, next will be Crimea.

And from year 2008 to year 2014, myself, as well as Saakashvili and I on record, repeated several times, next will be Crimea. I traveled to Ukraine and was talking to them that just, okay, next will be Crimea. people were laughing at me. It's just, come on. This guy is absolutely insane. It's completely crazy. Putin is our best friend.

Russia is our historical friend for centuries. That cannot happen. And this person is trying to solve some kind of his personal problems with Mr. Putin and so on. In January year 2014 during Maidan, I happened to be in Kiev, and I was on the TV show

with 12 the best Ukrainian experts. And I told them, In January 2014, I said, okay, just watch out. During this, Maidan, Putin will go for Crimea. All 12 people, Ukrainians were just laughing. Just this person is crazy. On February 20s, one month after our conversation show in Kiev, Putin started operation for occupation and annexation of Crimea.

After that, in April, yes, in April, It just early April, April 1st or April 2, just you can go to my life journal. You'll find this statement. In the night of April 6, Putin will start operation against Donbass. Why? Because I read what they have written in their website. And people are laughing from the night of April 6th, Strelkoff. Gerkin Strelkoff, started this operation for occupation of Slavansk and this so-called Donbass War.

After that, in August, year 2014, I said just, okay, if Ukrainians would not undertake necessary measures immediately would take people from Ilovak. They will be stabbed in the back by Russian regular forces. Ukrainians did not do. And after that Russian forces crossed the border, circled, in-circled. Ukrainian forces and killed more than 600 people over there. So after that, for eight years from year 2014 to yet 2022, I was talking, there will be next operation, full-scale operation against Ukraine with the purpose to get Kiev, to get because this kind of the dream of Putin is not Crimea, is not Herzniz, not Donbass, not

these five regions, Kiev. It was his dream that he was telling back in 2003, yet of 2004, that the might of garado of Rusk, must be under his control. Nobody believed in it. It was impossible to believe in it. And after that, we have February 24th, 22. Once again, Goldemir told us,

along with survival from Nazi concentration camps. If somebody tells you regularly that he's going to kill you, trust that person. Be serious. Do not ignore. Putin is saying for 25 years in a row that he is going to establish control over Europe. It is up to you to trust him or not to trust. I prefer to trust that person that he is serious about his intentions.

Andre, that's us. Thank you for coming on the show and giving us your perspective. And the final question we always end with Andres, what's the one thing we're not talking about as a society that we really should be? Sorry? What's the one thing we're not talking about as a society that we really should be? I laughed because what you've just said has just, you know, that's the one thing that we need to be talking about.

but what's the other thing? Before Andrew answers the final question, at the end of the interview, make sure you click the link in the description. Go to our substack where you'll be able to see this. Do you think Putin would be more or less likely to use nuclear weapons as he gets older? Was there a time early in Putin's presidency

when he was sincerely open to close the ties with the West? What role, if any, does geography play in Russian politics? I hope that you would continue what are you doing because once again, you are a rare voice in the English-speaking world that at least ready to listen to what became unusual and that not many others are talking about. And I wish you that would continue such an approach and talking by yourself and giving an opportunity to other people

who are ready to talk about which things, which sounds like impossible, but all of a sudden becoming possible. Thank you very much. Make sure to follow us over to Substant, where you get to ask Andre your questions. What do you think is the likelihood of China invading Taiwan or trying to take it in some way?