Putin's Russia Exposed the US/West’s Lies!!

And welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. I know this come so fast, unexpected. That's why I posted the survey for the community, whether you guys would like me to provide you a brief analysis about the interview that Carlson Tucker, or Tucker Carlson rather, uh, conducted with the Russian president Vladimir Putin. Uh, at first time I saw about 92% of you said yes, later on it was 87%. It doesn't matter. So the bottom line is that majority of you wants me to do this. But I understand that some of you, some of the avid viewers and supporters, we're not going to be here because— can anybody tell me a reason why? What's going on in China? Let me just see if you are aware of what's going on in China. Can anybody type in, in the chat box What's going on in China? Yeah, that is that. And I already got some, uh, uh, have sent me, uh, a direct comment, uh, sorry, Dr. O, we wouldn't be able to attend. Uh, why do, why do you think that is? What's going on in China? New Year's. That is correct, Ken. Ken Cho, you're absolutely correct, sir. Is the Chinese New Year. Ping Yu. It's the Chinese New Year, is the dragon. So as you know, it goes 12, uh, uh, signs that every year it rotates. So this year is the, uh, is the, uh, Year of the Dragon. No, Partha, which markets are you talking about? Japan? Because that might be the case for that. So anyway, uh, this is what I'm gonna be talking to you about today. Just provide you a brief analysis about the interview here. Then I'm gonna take the conversation to the other location because you all know why. I don't need to beat the dead horse for that. Here is the link to that one if you guys would like me to— would like to join me over there, uh, if, if your schedule permits. So, uh, so let me put this in the chat box for you, then, uh, I will see you on the other location later on after I'll provide some explanations at least for you here soon. All right, before I'll do this, let me jump briefly into what's going on around the world because there are some, some issues going on. So I'm going to share some pictures with you. Here's the first one that this might come to you as a shock surprise or might not even know about it. Well, I mentioned this before that some universities in America are funded by outside entities be they governments or entities or whatever else you can think of. So, and I did promise you that I will do a live stream in, uh, in which I will talk about the dark side of American academic institutions, including the likes of Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, uh, Yale, uh, Vanderbilt, all of those. If you only know the dark side, well, this one here you're looking at Qatar has been sort of involved with Texas A&M, which, by the way, I'm gonna disclose it here, I used to teach for Texas A&M. When it became clear to me the corruption that's going on inside, I kind of said, I am done here, and I left. They thought I was bluffing, and I said, no, I will not shortchange my students no matter what the cost is. And I don't think so. That former president, who was so weak by the way, uh, didn't understand what I was talking about. In other words, he tried to play this dumb with me as far as academia and all. I was like, listen, straightforward, the welfare of my students come first, non-negotiable. So I left. But anyway, here's the story. Texas A&M, now university, decided to close its Qatar campus and, and its partnership with Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development, which funds the branch, in a move criticized by the Qatari institutions as motivated by a disinformation campaign that seeks to harm its interest. Don't fall for all this. All this is nothing but hypes. There is the other side behind the closed doors as to where the funding for Texas A&M is coming from and why countries like Qatar or any other institutions will be involved in American education. Look no further than what's going on in Harvard, you know, all the funding that comes to Harvard from outside, and even with the US government that provide about $128 million a year out of taxpayers' money that goes to Harvard. Well, wait a minute, why aren't we giving Harvard money when it is a private institution? They have their own money, so why taxpayers will have to foot the bill for that? Just shows you how corrupted the system, even academia, that is. So, uh, second story, this is very interesting. Uh, this is a UK citizen, man, just average Joe. So, but what's the difference about him? He's taking stand. Yeah, he is taking stand because he's doing what his corrupt government couldn't do. Yeah, that, that's straightforward. It's because he's calling for now sort of to stop, or boycotting rather, the, uh, uh, what you call it, the, uh, uh, Israeli products and so forth. And, uh, the UK government won't be able to do that anyway because we all know where the UK government stands on that. Uh, this one here, uh, this one pertains to the whole system in America, the whole justice system, which is flawed, and if I may add the term fractured. Yeah, well, guess what? Now there is a documentary that is revealing the secrets of the American judiciary system. Now there is a lawsuit going on between Netflix, I believe, and, uh, whomever is pushing for this. Uh, whatever it is, the case is that there is no justice, the system in America. There was a lot to be said and never, never to be said. You know, it is how, for example, in the case of what you're looking at, the picture of Epstein there, this is what the victims Yeah, victims of, of, uh, or a victim rather of, uh, uh, Epstein described it after committing suicide. Yeah, so this is why, because no justice was served. So we all know the system is fractured and there is no surprise into that. All right, let's get into our topic here, and this is what I'm going to be talking about today. Regarding the recent interview that was conducted, that Tucker Carlson— and by the way, let me just put this on a record, I am not a fan of Tucker Carlson because I can tell also the guy could play both sides, because I heard his statements regarding China and makes me wonder, if you are making the case for Russia, why couldn't you make the case for China as well? You know, all of a sudden China is the bad And yes, we need to hear from Russia. So where do you stand? You know, but at the same time, it's not about Tucker here, it's about fairness, about the truth. What he did with the interview regarding— with Putin, I applaud him for that. I wish he will, down the road, he could do the same by going to China, request authorization to interview somebody there in the government even the president, President Xi, if he will be willing to and hear the other side instead of pushing the narrative in a negative way towards China, but at the same time saying, well, wait a minute, let's hear what the Russians have to say. And, and I just want to put this on, on the table from the get-go. But I do applaud the guy. I do applaud him for taking stand and also go all the way down there paying out of his own pocket. Nobody funded his trip, you know. Of course Washington is not happy about it. Now they calling him like the, uh, the idiot, the, the, the useful idiot. This is what Hillary Clinton called him. It's like, okay, why would you call him that? You call him that because you didn't like the fact that he's going to do the interview, and the interview will expose the truth that most Americans do not know vis-à-vis the Ukraine conflict. So now I listened to it, not in its entirety, because, uh, I, I do know the first, uh, the first like 30 minutes or so of the interview was about history, which I found it very fascinating, but also gave me an idea about how well-versed the Russian president is regarding the history of his country and of the world for that matter. And, and, and I sort of, uh, uh, the points he talked about, I addressed them in my Russia book right there. That's why I kind of skipped through that to get to what exactly— I did find one particular answer that when he's asked, because he was asked, uh, uh, uh, uh, in which the Russian, uh, uh, sort of Russian troops will invade or occupy or send the troops to Poland. Poland keeps coming up a lot in the conversation, and there is a reason for that. It's because Polish policy, foreign policy that is, it is not made by the Polish government. Let me just say this, say this on the record. It is, it is structured behind the scenes by the American ambassador who is the son of Brzezinski. You all know who Brzezinski was. Well, his son is the ambassador of the US and pushing the same narrative that Russia is bad and Poland government, Polish government will have to do A, B, C, and D. And this is what I found, the former president, President Duda, was useless. You know, I don't know, I am sure there are some good individuals inside Poland. Uh, but again, where the political climate in Poland— and I was there twice this past year, so I kind of had my own conversations with the individuals from there, those who are well-versed. In addition to— you all remember I had a conversation on the other channel with Mike Grupa, somebody I trust because he's well-versed into all this. Anyway, when asked, Putin, uh, Russian President Vladimir Putin, when asked if he could predict, for example, a scenario by which the Russian forces would be sort of dispatched to or deployed to Poland. And the Russian president's answer was straightforward, you know, that it could happen under one scenario and one scenario only. And I can see the logic and the arguments for it, is that if Poland attacks Russia which you and I know it won't happen. But if we push Poland to the forefront, because that is exactly what we have been doing with other countries. I'll give you the example of Philippines. I'll give you the example of South Korea. I give you the example of Japan. I'll give you the example of Australia. This is what we're doing. We're pushing them to the forefront. And now give you the example of Europe regarding Ukraine. No, uh, let me remove this, uh, slide here. Okay, here we go. And this is where I see one of— I found it very, very interesting, uh, not that I did not expect this personally, I did, because when I wrote my book about Russia back then, I argued that if the US will move certain types of missiles into the Polish soil Russia is going to react militarily. That's what I meant with that. The other thing that I found very, very interesting is that one of the messages the Russian president was sending to the US and the collective West— well, when I say collective West, you know, those are useless, the Germany, France, UK, and all the rest, they are useless. Let's just call it the US and collective West. One of the messages that I believe he was sending in a subtle manner, uh, was— has to do with how much the West is in denial about the realization that it will be impossible— yes, I use that term— impossible for the US, West, NATO, whatever you want to call it, to defeat Russia in Ukraine. It's a fact. And that I found it very, very interesting. Which means why? Which means what? It means that as long as the West keeps sending weapons, Russia just going to maintain the status quo as is, because defeating it ain't gonna happen. The meaning defeating Russia ain't gonna happen. NATO will not be sending its forces on the ground, because that will be a declaration of war. No. So what we're going to end up with, we're going to end up with the first statement we said when this conflict started: you fight the Russians. Can anybody complete the sentence for me? Let me see in the chat box if you guys can put that in. And, and that was said from the get-go, from the get-go. Can anybody tell me, you fight the Russians still? Let me see here. I know there's a delay here, guys, by the time you type in your answer and, and it'll show up. Uh, okay, it's not here yet, but anyway, I'm gonna have to move on with this, so You fight to the, the last Ukrainians. That, that's what it means. So, oh, you got it, Kate Ferguson, you got it. To the last Ukrainian. And that's exactly where the argument is. So, so some will say it was subtle message, other will say it wasn't subtle. In my opinion, it was subtle. Why? Because remember, he had to maintain— he, a Russian president— his conversation on a level of presidential. That's one. Second, the focus was in more of a historical aspects of it than anything that will sort of hint— if you don't understand the history, you won't be able to understand how Russia is behaving towards this. And that's to me— and again, it's my opinion, I could be wrong. If you disagree with me, that's fine also. Uh, but I do look at it as subtle, uh, and that's something that The West, we're not willing to accept, and this is why they are lashing out, uh, they are angry. As a matter of fact, you know, there were some stupid comments from some inside Washington calling for, uh, uh, not allowing Tucker to return back to the country. Well, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Why? Isn't that what democracy is all about, for him to be free and to interview whomever? So that means in my case, hypothetically, if I am to go and request permission from the Chinese government to interview Mr. Wang Yi, would I be able to return to my country here? You know, what kind of logic is that? And to me, those individuals in Washington that calling for that, which by the way are neocons, no more, no less, it's because the fear. They don't want people to know the truth, because now you are hearing the other side of the argument, which most of us Americans, those who are not very savvy or familiar with how geopolitics and so forth, or will not know where to look for the information, will not be able to get to it. We not— we never know. So because there is something important about this, is to understand where our tax dollars are spent on And this is why Washington is angry, and the EU is going to impose sanctions on Tucker for not traveling there. I bet you the EU has been ordered by the US because US, it won't look good, the optics of it, that the US government is sanctioning one of its citizens. That's kind of problematic, the optics of it. So you order your, your, your vassal states to do that, the EU in this case. And that is why I found it very, very interesting. Another point that, uh, based on the conversation, uh, or the questions that Tucker asked, has to do with, okay, is there any interest in Russia expanding the war in Ukraine to other locations? And the answer was no, not necessarily, and especially the two locations, Poland and Latvia. Well, we all know who's managing the internal political dynamics in both countries— Poland and Latvia. So that I found it very, very interesting. Uh, uh, it's because again, the West has been realizing for the last 8 months or so that defeating Russia in Ukraine will be impossible, even with NATO getting involved. Well, NATO is not going to get involved to begin with. Because that is the same thing they did— they, NATO, did to Georgia. If you all remember what took place about over a decade or so back in Georgia, back then it used to be the former president Mikhail Saakashvili, who was, by the way, educated right here in the US. We the one who put him there. They start to be tensions in, uh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I remember this one because I wrote about it. And we told him, hey, you go ahead and fight the Russians, we are behind you. The first— when the first shot was fired, he reached out to NATO and said, are you guys going to help me? Are you going to help me? We said, what are you talking about? Are you out of your mind? Do you want us to fight a nuclear Russia? And it took Russia about a week and a half, took over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, never returned. And, and I see the same scenario going on right here. So now there are those who calling, uh, some voices be they in, in, in London, in, in Berlin, in Paris, in Madrid, or in Washington, or Brussels for that matter. Those are calling for what we're gonna have to have is strategic defeat of the Russians on the battlefield. Huh, it's nothing but hypes. You look at right now what's going on in Ukraine between the comedian Z and his chief of staff. They are butting heads, and comedian Z couldn't fire him. It's because the comedian Z has no options but two. One, either to let things as is, or he's going to have to uh, uh, uh, sort of, uh, drop everything and, and leave. Well, leaving ain't gonna be going to his villa in Miami or villa in Italy or some location in France or whatever. He might end up in some back alley taken down. You all know what I mean, right? And I'll detail more, uh, when I get to the other location with this. And this is what I'm saying, uh, the idea of where the truth is that most Americans ought to hear. You know, you kind of give credit where credit is due. Do I agree with Tucker Carlson? Oh no, I don't. You know, his views, and to, to me again, it was that, uh, you playing two separate standards here, one towards Russia and another one towards China. I don't find it very troubling. My opinion, you know, have nothing against Tucker. I'll be happy to debate him on this issue. But at the same time, if you are to be independent, which some of us— I know I, I don't work for any entity, which I won't anyway, you know. To me, you gotta be pragmatic and sort of realistic in your assessments regarding countries when you deal with geopolitics. That, that's to me, it's a, it's no-brainer. So how come you are saying, oh, it's okay for us to hear from Russia but it's not okay to hear from China? And again, I am not advocating for China or Russia or any other country. You, you all know by now, guys, I don't do that kind of stuff because that's not me. But I am advocating for objectivity, for the truth, because it matters. And that's, uh, because Americans now are being fed some narrative regarding China that is so negative. Well, wait a minute, don't they deserve, they American people, to hear the other side also? Well, how are we going to hear that if the narrative is controlled, which you all know how? And that's what I intend to, uh, detail a little bit more, uh, as I move forward on the other platform. So Now, one of the questions that we're going to ask ourselves, which by the way I forgot to tell you what the questions were, uh, I'm, I'm gonna put them up for you here. Sorry guys, it's, it's— this comes so quick, and usually, as I always do, it takes me about a day to prepare my own information. But so the question is, why did the, the Russian president agree to the interview? You know, his president— I'm not saying And it's just, you're gonna have to maintain the diplomatic protocol and so forth. Why did he agree to the interview? Second question, will the Americans— when I say Americans, people, not the government, because we all know where our government is— accept the truth? And the third question, is the collective West now exposed for its lies? You know, and those are legitimate and fair questions. Because we ought to consider this as we continue our conversation here. And this is why, like, uh, in the first one, you will be okay, well, why did he agree? Why did the Russian president agree? Because he turned down some others, and I was aware of that. Some were trying to, but again, those who were trying and those who criticized Tucker by saying, oh no, we were trying and the Russian president never want to grant us audience, whatever. Well, it's because you were biased. You already coming with a preconceived notion how to push the narrative. So in the Russian president's opinion, the reason they agree to Tucker— I mean, you tell me that Russia wasn't aware of Tucker when he was at Fox and how he was bashing the Russians. Do you think they don't know that or they forget that? But all that aside, it's because at least in in the judgments of the Russian president, he agreed to the interview, uh, with, uh, with, uh, with Tucker is because the approach— Tucker is going to approach it from a different perspective because he doesn't work for a network. A network goes after the rating. This is why I'm saying to you guys, if you watch CNN, turn it off. If you watch Fox, turn it off. If you watch CBC, NBC, turn it off. Any, any outlets be they here in the US or in Europe. Just turn it off, my advice. You do what you want. But that is one of the reasons why he agreed, because at least in the Russian president's perspective, well, in this situation where Tucker is independent, doesn't— and he is independent. I checked one thing, that if anybody is, uh, sort of supporting his network, nobody is. He wasn't willing to accept money from donors and so forth, you know. And once again, just for the record, does that mean I agree with him on everything? No, I don't. I don't see eye to eye with him on a host of issues, mainly when it comes down to China. It's because he's wrong. It's like some other geopolitical analysts that arguing that the economy of China is going to collapse and all that. Nonsense, nonsense. So I disagree with him on that, but this is the reason why, uh, uh, the Russian president agreed to do that. And in my opinion, that's, that's the, the, the approach for it. And I could be wrong, but so far this is where I see. All right guys, I'm gonna have to go to the other location because I'm getting into some other areas where I don't want to say too much here, so here is the link. Let me, uh, oh, Iranian Putin, you say, uh, let me share this with you. Yeah. Oh, I see. Well, we all know how it's going to end up, you know. And again, to me, it's not— it's about what's right, you know. I'm not advocating for any this or that. I, I don't do that. I'm beyond that. So I've, I've been on the other side. I saw what it was like. Now it becomes my responsibility towards you, you know. I can't just, uh, push the narrative this way or that way. That won't be right of me to do so, and it's not right, and I will not do it no matter what. You all know where I stand on this. Let me put the link for you guys once again, and I will see you in about literally 5 minutes or so. Uh, here is the link. Copy the link. Here we go. I'm gonna put it in the chat box, and I will see you there. All right, guys, see you in a minute. See you in a minute or so. As always, remember, geopolitics impact your daily life in more ways than one. See you soon. Bye-bye.