This video exposes Israel’s deceptive claim that al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza was being used as a headquarters for Hamas, justifying an attack on the hospital. The evidence presented by Israel was weak, yet it was supported by the US administration and propagandists, resulting in the hospital being repeatedly attacked and left without power. The speaker condemns these actions as war crimes and calls for accountability. They express disappointment at the lack of outrage for Palestinian lives and urge viewers to take action.
Detailed Description
In the video, Owen Jones highlights the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) false claim that al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza was the main headquarters for Hamas freedom fighting activities, which was used to justify a devastating attack on the hospital. The IDF released a mocked-up video showcasing tunnels and meeting rooms allegedly belonging to Hamas within the hospital. However, foreign doctors, including Norwegian physician Mads Gilbert, vehemently denied these claims.
Despite the lack of evidence, the US administration under President Joe Biden supported Israel’s narrative, lthough they called it a “node“, not the headquarters. As a result, the hospital was repeatedly attacked and left without power, leading to the deaths of doctors, nurses, patients, and premature babies.
The IDF’s evidence, consisting of amateur footage and a dilapidated bathroom, failed to convince anyone of the hospital’s alleged role. Israel also refused demands for an independent investigation of the tunnels and ultimately destroyed them, preventing further scrutiny. This deception and subsequent war crimes committed by Israeli terrorists expose their disregard for civilian lives and international law.
The Washington Post conducted an investigation and concluded that the evidence fell short of showing that Hamas had been using the hospital as a command and control center. The investigation did not find any immediate evidence of military use by Hamas in the hospital buildings or any connection to the tunnel network.
Owen Jones emphasizes that targeting a hospital full of sick and dying patients was a grave war crime, and criticizes those who justified the assault on the hospital. He also mentions a column in the Washington Post that supported Israel’s claims, and criticizes commentators who moved the goalposts to justify the attack.
The speaker asserts that these actions are war crimes, and calls for holding those who disseminated lies and propaganda accountable. He also expresses shock and disappointment at the lack of outrage towards Palestinian lives and the acceptance of depraved war crimes, stating that he will never view the world the same way again. He emphasizes the need to learn from this lesson and take action.
In this video, Aleksandr Dugin, mentor of Vladimir Putin, discusses the Palestine-Israel conflict within the framework of the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar global order. He argues that Israel serves as a proxy for Western hegemony and that understanding geopolitical power dynamics is crucial for understanding their actions and motivations. Dugin emphasizes the need for unity among Islamic countries to resist Western control and establish their sovereignty. He also criticizes the West’s imposition of its values and rules on other civilizations and highlights the biases and double standards in Western media’s coverage of conflicts.
Dugin emphasizes the need for a belief system that promotes harmony and respect, criticizing the reputation of Israel and the United States’ support for it. Dugin predicts opposition against the West from the Muslim world and highlights the significance of the conflict surrounding the construction of the Third Temple in Jerusalem. He also discusses the potential for a nuclear conflict in the Middle East and the need for an ontological explanation to comprehend the ongoing crisis. Dugin concludes by urging for unity against a common enemy and expressing his hope for a free Palestine.
Detailed Description
Professor Alexander Dugin begins by discussing the Palestine-Israel conflict within the context of the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world system. He highlights that Israel is a proxy for the hegemonic power of the West, which plays a significant role in the conflict. Dugin suggests that understanding the geopolitical balance of power is essential in comprehending the actions and motives of the Israelis.
Prof. Dugin then discusses the current global order and the potential shift towards multipolarity. He explains how the hegemonic power is resistant to allowing this new order to emerge, leading to conflicts, wars, and diplomatic confrontations. Dugin argues that understanding Israeli politics requires considering the psychology of the Israeli state, which is based on a radical vision of the chosen race and religion. He suggests that Israel sees itself as the main people on Earth and views any resistance as a radical humiliation. Dugin predicts that Israel’s response to Hamas attacks will be harsh, with the goal of full extermination and ethnic cleansing of Gaza. He emphasizes that Israel is being supported by the global hegemon in this endeavor.
Mr. Dugin goes on to discuss the situation in Gaza and the lack of a solid and clear Russian stance on it. He argues that while Russia has expressed its support for the Palestinian people and their struggle against Israel, it ultimately sees the issue as primarily a problem between Arabs or Muslims and Israel, with the support of the United States. Dugin suggests that if the Islamic world does not react forcefully against Israel and instead tries to find a solution through diplomatic channels, Russia cannot intervene directly. He also notes that during Russia’s conflict in Ukraine, few Islamic states came to their aid, highlighting the need for Islamic countries to overcome their internal conflicts and consolidate their power as a pole within the global system.
Aleksandr Dugin argues that the conflict between Hamas and Israel is not just a local problem, but a direct attack on the sovereignty of Islamic civilization. He believes that if Islamic civilization does not react and stand up for itself, it shows that it is not ready to exist as a sovereign and independent power. While Russia is politically on the side of the Palestinian people, Dugin emphasizes that it is not realistic to expect Russia to open a new front and fight for the Palestinians against American power. He questions the absence of support from Islamic states, armies, and people in the face of what he perceives as the extermination of the Palestinian people. Dugin believes that the treatment of the Islamic world by the West, particularly in regards to the Palestinian issue, is a humiliation and existential threat that must be responded to in order to uphold Islamic identity and rights.
Aleksandr Dugin then discusses the concept of sovereignty and how it can be tested through the response to existential threats. He argues that many countries may claim to be sovereign but are not if they do not respond to geopolitical challenges. Russia, he says, is fighting to restore its sovereignty in the Eurasian context. He also suggests that if the Islamic world accepts and responds to the challenges it faces, it could become a new sovereign pole alongside Russia and China. However, Dugin acknowledges that there are divisions among Arab nations and within Islamic countries themselves, with the elites being influenced by globalist networks while the people have different perspectives. He believes that if Islamic leaders listen to and align with their own people, unity can be achieved.
Aleksandr Dugin explains that the resistance against Israel by Lebanese, Syrian, and Palestinian groups is becoming a global Islamic phenomenon that will eventually become an independent geopolitical power. Dugin believes that Muslims are gaining a geopolitical consciousness and understanding the need for unity in order to resist colonization and regain their status as subjects in geopolitics. He mentions the importance of a common platform and denominator for their self-organization and emphasizes that Gaza and Palestine are crucial test lines for their sovereignty.
When Prof. Dugin touches on the concept of sovereignty and how it has evolved in the post-Cold War era, he explains that in the bipolar system of the Cold War, only the capitalist West and the socialist East were considered sovereign, while the rest of the world had to choose a side or submit to the rule of one of these powers. However, after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was only one pole of sovereignty, the liberal West, and all other states were expected to abandon their claims to sovereignty. Dugin argues that with the growing independence of Russia and the rise of China, there are now other contenders for sovereign power, but neither country alone can compete with the West. Therefore, he suggests a redistribution of sovereignty on a multipolar basis, where Russia and China can combine their capacities to challenge the dominance of the collective West.
Speaking to the issue of sovereignty in the Islamic world, Aleksandr Dugin states that it is crucial for Islamic countries to unite and establish their sovereignty in order to resist Western control. He emphasizes that countries like Israel are not truly sovereign as they rely heavily on the West for support, while countries like Russia and China strive to affirm their sovereignty. Dugin argues that the world can either be unipolar or multipolar, and it is important to choose the latter, which is based on the collaboration and commonalities of different civilizations. He believes that a multipolar world order can only be established through the unity and cooperation of civilizations like Russia, China, the Islamic world, India, Africa, Latin America, and others.
When discussing the concept of universal values and how the West has failed to uphold them, Aleksandr Dugin argues that the West, with its emphasis on individualism, liberal democracy, and market economy, has imposed its principles on the rest of humanity. However, new civilizations are emerging based on different principles. For example, in Russia, traditional values, family, patriotism, and empire form the basis of their civilization. Dugin explains that in Russian society, being human is not about individualism but about being part of the whole, with ties to religion, ethnicity, and tradition. Similar principles form the basis of civilizations like China and Islamic tradition. Dugin asserts that without a belief in God, there are no rules, and this nationalistic attitude common in the West is rejected by other civilizations.
Aleksandr Dugin mentions that while India relies on the West to solve its regional problems, it maintains good relations with Russia. Dugin criticizes the West’s attitude towards the “other,” stating that they either view them as the same or as a dangerous threat. He argues that this racist mindset is ingrained in the West’s ideology and geopolitics. Dugin points out that resistance against global liberal values and unipolarity is growing not only in other countries but also within the West itself, with many people protesting against the treatment of others, such as the Palestinian genocide. He concludes that modern-day racism is still prevalent, despite the abandonment of the term, and cites Israel and the West as examples of this.
Aleksandr Dugin criticizes the Israeli government for targeting Palestinian civilians and ignoring their sovereignty, despite international decisions and the obsolete structure of the United Nations. Dugin argues that international law is not real and is simply a tool of Western hegemony. He mentions the double standards in indictments, pointing out that while Vladimir Putin has faced allegations of war crimes in Ukraine without evidence, Benjamin Netanyahu has not faced any consequences for his actions. Dugin highlights the hypocrisy and indifference of the West towards civilian casualties in Palestine, as compared to the attention given to the conflict in Ukraine.
Aleksandr Dugin argues that those who deeply believe in the Western system and its values tend to accept everything the media says, even if it includes lies. Conversely, societies that reject the Western agenda are more inclined to believe alternative narratives that expose the hypocrisy of Western media. Dugin suggests that we are in the midst of a deep psychological, cultural, and mental war, where the transmission of facts is heavily censored and controlled. He also highlights the disproportionate coverage of civilian casualties in conflicts like Ukraine and Gaza, implying that the globalist agenda is indifferent to the suffering and continues to perpetuate genocide.
Aleksandr Dugin further discusses the need for a deeper belief system that promotes harmony, respect, and love for tradition and diversity of cultures. He argues that those who perpetrate crimes and fuel conflicts will eventually be defeated. Dugin also suggests that the reputation of Israel is irreparable, and the United States’ support for Israel creates problems with the Arab and Islamic world, damaging their relations. He believes that the US’s current actions lack real geopolitical reasons and are a hegemonic gesture. Dugin predicts that the West will be opposed by the Muslim world, and the US will lose without any balance or positive relations.
Aleksandr Dugin believes that while the West will continue to supply Ukraine with weapons, the situation is worse for the global West overall. Dugin emphasizes that multipolarity does not promote anti-Semitism or racism, but rather accepts and celebrates differences. He also suggests that the current events in the Middle East, particularly with the conflict between Arabs and Jews, is causing deep trauma for the Islamic soul and will lead to a long-lasting and significant impact. Dugin speculates that Germany may be a victim of its own strategy, as the situation has undermined their position and created new security threats for the entire West. He also brings up the religious dimension of the conflict, highlighting the eschatological elements and the significance of defending Temple Mountain as potential triggers for a large-scale Palestinian revolt in the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem.
Prof. Dugin explains the significance of the conflict surrounding the construction of the Third Temple in Jerusalem, emphasizing that it is not solely an economic or political matter. He discusses how different religious groups, including Jews, Christians, and Muslims, hold religious beliefs regarding this temple and its connection to the end times. Dugin argues that these eschatological beliefs can intensify the conflict and make it more radical. He also dismisses the notion that the situation is about gas discovery in Gaza, stating that the economy is a flexible element that can adapt to various circumstances. Instead, he asserts that geopolitics and ideological factors play a much more crucial role. Lastly, Dugin briefly touches on the risk of nuclear weapons and suggests that a potential World War III has already begun in some form between the unipolar camp and its opponents.
When discussing the potential for a nuclear conflict in the Middle East, Aleksandr Dugin mentions that Israel, Iran, and Pakistan are known or suspected to possess nuclear weapons. Dugin suggests that if the conflict escalates further, there is a possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be used, potentially leading to a nuclear exchange between these countries. He also highlights the involvement of the United States and Russia in potentially supporting their respective allies. Dugin emphasizes the devastating consequences of using strategic nuclear weapons, which would result in the end of humanity, but states that the use of tactical nuclear weapons could still allow for the continuation of humanity, albeit with significant destruction and loss of life.
Aleksandr Dugin then discusses the significance of the Middle East in relation to the concept of Armageddon. He believes that the current conflict in Gaza holds religious importance, as it aligns with the prophecies of monotheistic religions. Dugin argues that geopolitics is an important tool to understand these events, but it should be complemented with a religious analysis. He suggests that there may have been a crucial error in human history that has led to the current situation, which goes beyond ideology or religious differences. Dugin emphasizes the need for an ontological explanation to comprehend the ongoing crisis, as it ultimately impacts the destiny of humanity. In closing, he warns against being influenced by leaders who do not represent the will, thoughts, and values of the people, as this can lead to real authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
Ultimately, Aleksandr Dugin emphasizes the importance of standing together against a common enemy, as they do in Russia. He urges Islamic brothers to understand the struggle and fight for their own values, as they are in a similar position as Russia was in the Ukrainian conflict. Dugin believes that only by being united can they preserve their dignity and achieve victory. He also expresses his hope for a free Palestine.
On October 13, 2023, as journalists from different news outlets were covering the conflict in Alma al-Shaab on the southern border of Lebanon, the Israeli militants launched a series of deliberate shelling attacks on the journalists, killing Issam Abdallah of Reuters and seriously wounding 6 others. Among the wounded are Christina Assi of AFP (Agence France-Presse) who lost her leg in the attack. Carmen Joukhadar and Elie Brakhia reporting for Al Jazeera, Dylan Collins with AFP, Thaer Al-Sudani and Maher Nazeh with Reuters were also wounded.
The footage from the attack was analyzed by the Amnesty Intentional and revealed that the journalists were marked as PRESS and their car had TV plastered on top of it, suggesting the attack was a violation of international law. AI called the attack by Israel a war crime and calls for an investigation to bring accountability and justice for the victims and their families.
The video discusses the importance of journalists documenting events and collecting evidence to piece together what is happening. The affected journalists describe how seeing their friend and colleague die only strengthened their resolve to speak up for those whose voices have been silenced by Israel. They ultimately believe that this experience has made them even more committed to his field.
So far, 63 other journalists have been killed by Israeli militants in Gaza to stop the truth from coming out.
Wayne Stiles, a co-pilot on the first rescue helicopter to reach the USS Liberty after it was deliberately attacked by Israel on June 8th, 1967, describes the mission. He explains that due to the extent of the ship’s destruction, they had to hover at 25 feet and use a hoist cable to bring the wounded up to the helicopter.
In his testimony, Stiles recounts the events of the morning, including seeing blood flash back and forth in a machine gun emplacement in the forward gun tub. He later learned that two or three crew members had been machine gunned to death while trying to defend against the Israeli attack.
Wayne Stiles also notes that there was another helicopter squadron on board which had larger helicopters and completed the evacuation in the afternoon. Overall, Stiles describes the mission as a difficult and shocking experience.
Dirk Pohlmann (German journalist, author, screenwriter, director and producer) and Jimmy Dore (American stand-up comedian, political commentator and theorist) recently briefed the United Nations Security Council about the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.
Pohlmann presented new evidence suggesting that the operation would have required professional or military divers and a large-scale deployment of explosives, making it unlikely to have been carried out by a small sailing boat. He also raised suspicions about the Bops 20t exercise, which took place around the same time as the sabotage, and suggested that it may have provided a cover for the deployment of the bombs.
Dore highlighted the alleged involvement of the United States in the sabotage, pointing to evidence that US Navy divers planted explosives and high-ranking US officials expressed satisfaction with the attack. The speakers emphasized the need for an independent and objective investigation to reveal the truth behind the sabotage and hold the perpetrators accountable. Representatives from other countries echoed these concerns and urged transparent and timely disclosure of the investigation results.
UN Brief by Dirk Pohlmann
Mr. Dirk Pohlmann, an investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker, is the first to address the United Nations Security Council about the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. He discusses how little information is known about the sabotage, including the number of explosions and the identity of the perpetrators. Pohlmann presents new evidence, including the opinions of Professor Dr. Tanda and the seismic data from a Norwegian seismological station, suggesting that the operation would have required professional or military divers and a large-scale deployment of explosives, making it unlikely to have been carried out by a small sailing boat. He also raises suspicions about the Bops 20t exercise, which took place around the same time as the sabotage, and suggests that it may have provided a cover for the deployment of the bombs.
Dirk Pohlmann makes the claim that the USS Kar 257 M and US Gunon Hall 150 190 M, both small aircraft carriers, could have been used to deploy explosives for sabotaging the Nord Stream pipeline. It is suggested that US Navy divers with deep diving equipment from Panama City, Florida might have been involved in deploying the bombs. Furthermore, it is alleged that a US Poseidon aircraft dropped a sonobuoy that triggered the timers of the bombs. While there is speculation that the Norwegians were supposed to drop the sonobuoy, evidence suggests that a US Hercules aircraft flew to Norway to fetch a specific sonobuoy and bring it to Sigonella.
Additionally, there are discrepancies in the official reports about the amount of explosives used, with a Swiss physicist, Dr. Hans Benjamin Brown, suggesting that the physical evidence points towards the use of an explosive charge at least a thousand times larger than what has been reported. These details were presented in a detailed report to the Swiss government and shared with the United Nations.
Dirk Pohlmann then discusses the contradictions and inconsistencies in the official reports regarding the magnitude and nature of the explosive charge used in the sabotage of Nord Stream 1. The reports initially stated that the explosion had a magnitude of 2.1 on the Richter scale, corresponding to approximately 700 kilograms of TNT equivalent. However, further analysis suggests that the magnitude was actually 3.1, indicating a much larger explosive charge of roughly 25 tons of TNT equivalent.
Dirk Pohlmann also points out that the location of the explosion was strategically chosen to generate a shock wave directed at Kaliningrad, raising doubts about the nature of the explosive charge used. The observations and independent geophysical findings strongly contradict the reported use of a small conventional explosive, suggesting a much larger explosive charge of 1 to 4 kilotons TNT equivalent.
At the second half of his speech, Dirk Pohlmann highlights the importance of securing independent and objective evidence through the authority of the UN Security Council, as it is crucial to address the seriousness of the matter. The Baltic seabed’s abundance of hydrates can be identified by Western navies, making it possible to determine if a ship, such as the Andromeda allegedly used at the sabotage site, was present.
Historical examples of Western intelligence operations targeting Soviet pipelines are mentioned, including the killing of Italian oil manager Enrico Mattei and the destruction of the Mal Pipeline by the CIA.
The briefing also mentions the political dynamics surrounding the Nord Stream pipeline, with the US having no allies but hostages and certain governments suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
UN Brief by Jimmy Dore
Jimmy Dore also discusses the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline, highlighting it as the biggest act of industrial sabotage in human history and pointing out that President Joe Biden himself stated his intentions to attack the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
According to investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, US Navy divers planted explosives in June 2022, which later destroyed three of the four pipelines. High-ranking US officials, including Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, expressed satisfaction with the attack, claiming it was an opportunity to diminish reliance on Russian energy.
Jimmy Dore argues that the Western media’s coverage of the conflict in Ukraine conveniently leaves out key events, such as the 2014 coup orchestrated by the US and Ukraine Nazis, which contributes to a false understanding of the conflict.
He mentions the involvement of a Nazi Azov Battalion and the violation of a peace agreement by the Ukrainian government. The speaker also emphasizes the expansion of NATO onto Russia’s border as a primary cause of the tensions. It is argued that the United States’ imperialistic ambitions and fear of German-Russian collaboration drive its aggression. Jimmy Dore criticizes the US and its NATO allies for their silence on the environmental impact of the war, particularly the release of methane gas. Furthermore, he mentions Greta Thunberg’s visit to Ukraine following the Nord Stream bombing.
Remarks from International Representatives
The inconsistencies in the narrative promoted by Washington and its allies regarding the bombing of the Nord Stream gas pipelines in September 2022 are then discussed by the representative of the Russian Federation. Despite claims that national investigations are underway, no results have been produced thus far. The speaker suggests that more evidence is emerging in the expert community indicating that the explosion was the work of Washington. He argues that this act of sabotage was committed to consolidate dominance in Europe, ignoring the dire need for Russian energy resources.
The lack of progress in the investigations conducted by Germany, Denmark, and Sweden are then highlighted, and questions the effectiveness of these national efforts. He proposes the establishment of an independent international commission to investigate the act of sabotage and emphasizes that this incident was not a prank but a terrorist act with significant economic and environmental consequences for multiple states. He argues that the actions taken fall under the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
Despite German Chancellor Olaf Schulz’s intention to resolve the matter, there is a lack of relevant information and attempts to conceal the truth. Various ridiculous versions of events have been spread to divert attention from the involvement of Western powers.
Russian representative references an investigation by journalist Seymour Hirsch, which suggests that American divers planted explosives during NATO exercises. There are also mentions of statements from President Biden, Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, and former Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski expressing opposition to Nord Stream. The involvement of Germany, Denmark, and Sweden is seen as a cover-up to protect their overseas allies.
He calls for accountability and justice for the perpetrators and proposes a draft presidential statement for consideration by the Security Council. The speaker emphasizes the importance of preventing such crimes and avoiding impunity.
Following the speech by the Russian representative, the representative of Japan lso expresses concern about the incident and acknowledges the environmental implications it may have.
Representatives from Brazil, Gabon, and Ecuador then address the United Nations regarding the Nord Stream pipeline explosions and the need for transparent and timely disclosure of the investigation results. They emphasize the economic losses, environmental impacts, and threats to international peace and security caused by the sabotage. Expressing support for the national authorities conducting the investigations, they urge cooperation, information exchange, and the avoidance of hindrances or opacity in order to reveal the truth behind the incidents.
Representatives from Switzerland, and China also address the United Nations about the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in the Baltic Sea. They condemn the acts of sabotage, highlighting the environmental impact and the potential for heightened tensions and unpredictable consequences. The representatives call for objective and thorough investigations to determine the truth and express concern about the delays in reaching conclusive results. They emphasize the importance of upholding the rule of law and avoiding disruptive actions that hinder the search for truth. China calls for active communication and cooperation with Russia and warns against attempting to politicize the investigation, emphasizing the need for objective and authoritative conclusions.
Finally, representatives from Malta, and the United Kingdom address the concerns of the international community regarding the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. Malta strongly condemns the sabotage and highlights the threats posed to energy security and regional stability. They express confidence in ongoing investigations and reject claims that sufficient time has not been given to establish the truth. The United Kingdom thanks the briefers for their perspectives but the video ends as the representative begins his speech.
The video focuses on the case of Gonzalo Lira, a US commentator who was jailed in Ukraine for speaking about uncomfortable facts, such as the presence of neo-fascists and neo-Nazis in the Kiev regime, and the shelling of Russian-speaking Ukrainians.
The evidence used against him is based on factual statements that have been admitted by UN agencies, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International.
The video discusses the double standard of Western media and human rights organizations in remaining silent about Lira’s arrest and calls for pressure on them to speak out.
The speaker highlights the importance of speaking up against injustice, regardless of political differences, as this could happen to anyone.
00:00:00
In this section, we learn about the case of Gonzalo Lira, a US citizen living in Ukraine who was arrested by the Ukrainian security service on allegations of producing pro-Russian propaganda. However, as it turns out, the evidence used against him is a video in which Lira expresses factual statements, such as the Kiev regime consisting of neo-fascists and neo-Nazis, and the shelling of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. These are facts that have been admitted by both the Western media and Western governments sponsoring Ukraine. Therefore, the accusations against Lira appear to be baseless, and it is suggested that his arrest is part of Ukraine’s crackdown on free speech and the suppression of any narrative that does not fit its agenda.
00:05:00
In this section, the transcript discusses the evidence of Ukraine’s shelling of its own population, resulting in thousands of deaths, which Gonzalo Lira was arrested for speaking about. The evidence comes from sources such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the UN itself. Despite this evidence being admitted by US government officials and Western media outlets, they have remained largely silent about Lira’s arrest. The transcript argues that if this were happening in Russia, the condemnation would be immediate. It calls for pressure on these “hypocrites” and exposes the double standard of Western media and human rights organizations.
00:10:00
In this section of the video, the speaker highlights that Gonzalo Lira, a US commentator, was jailed in Ukraine for speaking about the presence of Nazis and the shelling of civilians. The speaker argues that despite political differences, people should speak up against this injustice as it could happen to anyone. The video description gives a list of Twitter accounts that people can tag and put pressure on, such as Human Rights Watch, the US Embassy in Kiev, and the US State Department. The Western media is also criticized for its silence on this issue.
In this section, the speaker explains why Ukraine must have higher casualties than Russia in the ongoing conflict. The speaker uses underground reports from various mainstream Western journalists and interviews with westerners who fought in the war as sources. He also highlights that Ukraine has lost the war and over 100,000 Ukrainian military officers have been killed.
Despite being outnumbered, the speaker notes that the Russians invaded with a relatively small force, and most of the soldiers were gone during the successful Ukrainian offensives. Furthermore, the speaker notes that the extreme disparity in firepower has been noted by both the Ukrainian and the Western media, and the lack of armor, artillery, and ammo on the Ukrainian side has made them less wasteful.
00:05:00
In this section, the video discusses the reasons why Ukraine must have higher casualties than Russia in the ongoing conflict. The Russian artillery, armor, and infantry are more modern and advanced than the Ukrainian forces, and the Russian air force, though limited in numbers, is still operational.
Additionally, Ukraine lacks long-range weapons, which have caused substantial damage that the media may not be reporting. The video also states that the armies’ methods of fighting differ, as Ukraine lacks armory, leading to engagements with little to no artillery support and light armored attacks without any objective. The Ukrainians are described as stubbornly holding every inch of land and engaging in sometimes-suicidal attacks with no willingness to retreat.
00:10:00
In this section of the video, the speaker discusses the lack of proper training and intelligence provided to Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines, resulting in unnecessary casualties. The mobilization process for soldiers in Ukraine is shown to be poorly managed and there have been cases of disabled individuals and even six-year-olds being called up for duty.
A firearms instructor who visited Ukraine provides a disturbing account of the conditions soldiers are facing, which is made worse by the acute manpower shortage in the country. The speaker questions the quality of troops and the losses incurred in the conflict, especially compared to the mobilized and trained Russian soldiers.
00:15:00
In this section, the speaker discusses the inefficiencies and challenges of the Ukrainian military structure, from needing approval for range time from a general to approval for gas for a car. He argues that this structure is not an effective way to fight a war, and even suggests that it may be designed to be intentionally ineffective.
Additionally, the speaker notes that the incentive to appear incompetent due to conscription has contributed to Ukraine’s lack of preparation for the war compared to Russia, which suffered major losses at the start of the conflict.
00:20:00
In this section, the speakers recount their experiences in the Ukrainian and Russian militaries. One of the speakers was saved from being part of a failed mission that caused the deaths of all of its participants.
The other speaker describes a near-death experience during his first mission. The section ends with a tragic account of a tent city that was hit by a thermobaric weapon, resulting in the deaths of 135 young officer recruits.
00:25:00
In this section, a man recounts his experience during a battle, where he thought it would be an easy win due to the close distance of the enemy. However, the opposing forces were actually much farther away and ended up causing high casualties among his team.
He describes the chaos and panic that ensued, with vehicles blowing up and people getting killed. Even though he did not fire a single round, the man was overcome with fear during the intense fight and found himself hiding in a ditch.
00:30:00
In this section, a first-hand account of a battle in Ukraine describes the overwhelming artillery fire that Russian forces employed against the Ukrainian army. Despite being outnumbered and outgunned, the Ukrainians attempted to fight back but struggled due to the Russians’ superior range advantage.
The result has been a significant disparity in casualties, with the Ukrainians sustaining upwards of 200 fatalities per day and 500 wounded while the Russians suffer fewer casualties. This strategy was a shift from earlier in the war in which the Russians engaged at closer range with Ukrainian fighters. Western volunteers also attest to the rarity of seeing Russian forces directly.
00:35:00
In this section, the speaker discusses the strategy of bombing and destroying areas before losing them to the enemy, which he claims is often done by the Russians. He also acknowledges that the casualty situation during the Ukrainian conflict turned even more in Russia’s favor.
The speaker then shares his experience of being deployed to Pisky, a contested area, with a heavily armed convoy, ready to assault the city and shovel it out. However, their convoy was spotted by drones, and their artillery missed the town, resulting in no casualties.
00:40:00
In this section, the speaker recounts his own experience of a landmine hitting their vehicle while under fire and how he lost his entire squad that day. He also highlights the Russian retreats, which were often made fun of, but which he argues were done with minimal losses and no routing.
He cites various news articles that suggest the high casualty situation of the Ukrainians, especially during the Harrison offensive and the recent fighting in the Bachman region, and highlights how even the locals are spotting for the Russian artillery.
00:45:00
In this section, the speaker discusses the reasons why Ukraine must have higher casualties than Russia in the ongoing conflict. Despite having more concentrated forces due to a manpower advantage, Ukraine holds an inferior position in armor, artillery, air force, and medium to long-range capabilities.
The lack of training, tactics, and basic supplies like winter clothing causes extreme losses reported by Ukrainian journalists and medics. The speaker refutes the two arguments that support lower Ukrainian casualties, namely the idea of attackers tripling the losses and lost equipment. The speaker emphasizes that these arguments lack logic and understanding of basic military doctrine.
Oh, it’s just your typical story of countries arguing over who gets to play with their weapons and then suddenly they’re all in a big war! Germany is pointed all fingers at and America didn’t want to get involved, but they couldn’t resist showing off their global power by sending troops to every corner of the earth.
Even William Jennings Bryan, a devout Christian, got so disgusted with Woodrow Wilson’s handling of the war that he quit his job. And then there was that whole Lusitania ship thing with accusations of carrying war stuff and warnings that it might get sunk.
The really cool thing about this war was that conscription made sure everyone got to join in on the dying, not just the professional soldiers. Plus, civilians got to die more than military people – that’s always fun for the Satanic elite. Turkey killed a whole bunch of civilians and Serbia had a lot of disease deaths, but Germany and Russia won the prize for losing the most people. America, of course, also had to join in and lost a measly 50,000.
For Real
The document talks about the events leading to World War I, highlighting how Russia mobilized against Austria and Germany declared war on Russia, invaded West through Luxembourg and Belgium, and declared war on France. Great Britain entered the war due to the invasion of Belgium while America remained undecided.
President Woodrow Wilson promised to keep the US out of the European War and follow the Monroe Doctrine of allowing European monarchies to exhaust themselves, but America had become a global power with possessions, and it was not likely to stay neutral.
The involvement of Woodrow Wilson and America’s participation in World War I was questionable, with the secretary of state resigning in disgust over Wilson’s handling of the war. When the Lusitania passenger liner was to sail from New York, the German Embassy passed out leaflets warning people that the ship was liable to be sunk, and many agreed that the ship was carrying Munitions for the war effort in England.
The casualty figures of the war are difficult to ascertain, with conscription distributing deaths over a large cross-section of society instead of the professional soldiers. Civilian deaths were much higher than military deaths, with a million or more civilians dying in Turkey as a result of the massacre of Turkish Armenians, while only 325 000 are recorded as dying in Turkish military action.
Russia and Germany are thought to have lost 1.8 million, with France losing about 1.3 million, and Britain losing about the same. America lost 50 000 in the war.
Dr. Gene Kim argues Satanic occult rituals may have taken place…
Let’s Sing Along
From peace to war, overnight it came
Russia, Austria, Germany, all met with shame
Invading through Belgium, Germany caused a stir
Britain declared war, America didn’t concur
Wilson promised peace, to keep US out
But recent global power made doubt
Bryan resigned as Christians raised concerns
Lusitania’s sinking gave one excuse to turn
Difficult to count, the casualties of war
Conscription and disease spread far
Civilian deaths surpassed the rest
Turkey, Serbia, France and Britain, put to the test
Overall, the world was changed
Millions lost and rearranged
A war that impacted far and wide
A history that we can’t divide.
