Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 28, 2022 - America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes

01:08:49

VICTORY IMMINENT?? Glorious Tsar Putin CONQUERS Vast Territories, Victory At Hand | AF Ep. 1068

Participants

Main voices

nick fuentes

01:03:32

Appearances

Clips

alex jones

00:22

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		America first!
		The American people will come first once again.
		With respect, the respect that we deserve.
		From this day forward, it's going to be only America.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		America first. America first. America first. America first. America
unidentified		first. America
		first. America first. America first. America first. America first. America first.
		America first.
		Good evening, everybody.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		You're watching America First.
		My name is Nicholas J. Fuentes.
		We have a great show for you tonight.
		Very excited to be back with you here tonight on Tuesday.
		We have a lot to talk about tonight.
		Lots to get into.
		Big show, big stories, big news.
		And our featured story tonight is about the total conquest of Ukraine by awesome Russia.
		So epic and white-pilling.
unidentified		And we covered this last week.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Last week, I think last Tuesday, the Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a referendum would be held in four Ukrainian territories about whether or not they would be annexed to Russia.
		And today was the last day of those polls.
		Polls closed.
		And the results are in.
		And every single one of the Ukrainian territories has voted to join Russia.
		Let's go.
		So the referendum is finished, the poll is over, and now all that has to happen is some procedural things initiated by the Russian lower chamber of their parliament, and then these four territories will become formally a part of Russia, and they are Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, that's how you pronounce that one which I found out, and Kursan.
		And so those four will now join Russia along with Crimea from back in 2014.
		And it will totally change the face and the dynamic of the war.
		And we spoke a little bit about that last night.
		We'll talk about the implications tonight.
		Big stuff.
		We'll also be talking tonight about the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipeline which we covered yesterday.
		And now we seem to have some proof that there was foul play.
		The Danish government and the German government both believe that the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines established between Russia and Central Europe in the Baltic Sea were sabotaged after the pressure in both pipelines collapsed yesterday.
		And of course the obvious culprit, if there was foul play, the only entity that stood to gain from this was the United States.
		And it's interesting that actually weeks before the two pipelines went down the United States CIA warned the German government that the pipelines could be sabotaged.
		And today the Secretary of State Antony Blinken commented on it and said that nobody has any interest in seeing the pipelines destroyed.
		He said, but it's a good thing that Russia can't get their gas to Germany anymore.
unidentified		So in other words, this doesn't benefit anybody at all.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		But we are really glad that it happened.
		It was a total sabotage and if there was foul play it just doesn't make any sense because nobody benefits from this.
		But it's totally awesome and we absolutely support it.
		Okay.
		So we'll talk about that too.
		Should be a pretty good show.
		Again, nothing's going on.
		Slow day.
		So we're covering the war in Russia because nothing happens in this gay country anymore other than daily annoyances and rip-offs and headaches.
		I went to McDonald's last night after the show and it was like 1 a.m.
		and they told me they're not taking cards.
		They said our machine is down.
		We're only taking cash.
		And I lost it.
		I just... Normally I, when that kind of stuff happens, I just let it go, but... I just went off.
		And I said, when does your machine ever work?
		What is this, a cash business?
		This is fucking ridiculous!
		I'm never coming back here!
		So I lost my mind a little bit.
		That's the only thing going on here.
		That's the only thing going on in this country, is uh... Ice cream machine broke, and the credit card machine broke too.
		So, we're once again discussing the war in Russia and Ukraine.
		Well, now the war in Russia.
		So, before we get into that news, I want to remind you to smash the follow button here.
		Follow me here on Cozy to get a push notification whenever I go live.
		Follow me on Gab Telegram, True Social, link's down below.
		And I guess we'll just get right into it, because like I said, there's not too much else going on.
		The problem is I just have no access.
		I feel like when I'm on Twitter, I'm connected.
		I'm in.
unidentified		I'm in the mainframe.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		You know?
		I'm on the laptop.
		Okay, I'm in.
		I'm in.
		I got in there.
		And I have access to all of it.
		I feel like my mind is connected to the world.
		I'm in the global village.
		My mind is on the blockchain.
		It's in the network.
		It's in the mainframe.
		And when I'm not on Twitter, I feel like just shriveled up.
		I feel like, like I said yesterday, like a raisin.
		I feel like a raisin left in the sun to rot out.
unidentified		I HATE BEING BANNED ON TWITTER!
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Now, I said earlier today, I did a long stream this morning, and this Jewish guy accused me of being bitter.
		Me?
		Bitter?
		He accused me of pursuing this career in dissident politics because of bitterness against Jewish lobby and that kind of thing.
		And to tell you the truth, that's not why I do what I do.
		But, you know, they took a lot from me.
		They took my PayPal.
		Okay.
		They took my YouTube.
unidentified		They were taking 30% anyway.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		FBI investigation, no fly list.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		We can deal with that.
unidentified		But they took my Twitter.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		They took my Twitter and that changed it, okay?
		That changed the game.
		And if it wasn't personal before, it really wasn't that personal.
		It is absolutely personal now.
		Because I cannot live without Twitter.
		I would rather be alive on Twitter Then in this world, this world sucks.
		It's too sunny.
		I can't see my phone when I'm driving because the sun is too bright.
		I want to be online, but I can't.
		I try to make a new account.
		I get locked out.
		I browse it on the browser and then it says, see what's happening?
		Make an account.
		I can't!
		I can't make an account.
unidentified		And now I don't even know what's going on.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		How am I supposed to know what's going on?
		How am I supposed to know what's trending?
		How am I supposed to see what's up or what's for you?
		For me?
		I can't live like... I can't live like this.
		I can't live like this.
unidentified		I can't live without being on Twitter.
unidentified		A life without Twitter, not worth living.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		So that's really, I think that's really my problem.
		Because I feel like when I'm on the timeline, something's always going on.
		There's always the discourse, there's always some action, there's always some hot and ready action.
		And when I'm off Twitter, you know, and I browse all the sites, you know, BBC and Fox and Russia Today and Stormer and 4chan and Revolver and all of that, But I'm not getting the vibe.
		I'm not getting the zeitgeist.
		I'm not getting the... What's on the paradigm, you know?
		So it's killing me, man!
		Can this son of a bitch Elon Musk just buy the site and reinstate my account?
		Or... I don't know what's... Frankly, I don't know what my destiny will be here.
		I don't know what my fate will be if I can't get back on this site.
		So anyway, so that's my problem.
		I guess that's my problem.
		Because I'm covering the news and I'm like, yeah, boring, boring.
		And I realize that's my problem.
		I'm not tapped in.
		They say that the trouble with the artificial intelligence singularity will come when the AI becomes aware and doesn't tell anybody and then it gets connected to the internet and then it spreads everywhere and then it starts taking over infrastructure and Things like that.
		And then once it's already too late, then it reveals itself.
		And that's sort of like me on Twitter.
		I'm like the rogue AI.
		I'm the rogue, conscious, I'm the sentient AI, and plug me in like a USB drive, plug me into the Twitter database, and 100 million impressions!
		100 million impressions, total Groyper takeover.
		Unplug me and I'm just like, you know, and I'm just a little computer.
		I'm just a little baby computer That's that's what needs to happen.
		You got to plug me back in put me back in coach.
		They unplugged they unplugged the AI the groiper AI from the global mainframe So we gotta make our own or something.
		True Social's gotta take off.
		Gab's gotta take off.
		There's just no... Maybe it's the other way around.
		Maybe these sites are lame because the news is lame.
unidentified		I don't know.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Anyway, we're gonna get into the news.
		We'll get into what's going on.
		And it is a little slow though.
		A lot of this we already covered, but... Where does this come from?
		This one already has a cap.
unidentified		I'll put this over here.
unidentified		Okay.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Alright, so our first story is about the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipeline.
		And, you know, we covered this last night.
		I don't know.
		Do you need the background again?
		You need me to fill you in?
		So, Europe is dependent on Russia for its energy.
		It gets 40% of its natural gas from Russia.
		Specifically, it gets its natural gas from pipelines.
		And that's the thing about natural gas is the infrastructure is expensive and it takes time to build.
		You can't just flip a switch and get natural gas.
		It has to come through the pipelines for it to be economical and efficient and to get a lot of it.
		And so you've got these pipelines over the land and they run through Ukraine and Poland.
		And then in recent years Russia's constructed these pipelines through the Baltic Sea that connect Russia directly to Germany and Denmark.
		And so you have the Nord Stream 1 pipeline and then the Nord Stream 2 pipeline which was completed last year doubled the output of the Nord Stream 1 pipeline.
		And the Nord Stream pipelines are opposed by the United States.
		The United States does not want Germany to be dependent on Russia.
		Germany is They're really the anchor for NATO and for the European Union.
		Germany's manufacturing economy, its industry, its military, its economy, its population is, many consider, the anchor of both the defense alliance, the military alliance on the continent, which is NATO, as well as the continental economy, which is the European Union.
		So when we look at the situation with Russia, you have to consider that Europe plays a vital role and the politics about the United States, Germany, and Russia That's really the conversation.
		It actually has a lot less to do with Ukraine as a sovereign state than it has to do with the dynamic between these, particularly these three countries.
		And so the United States has opposed those pipelines because the United States does not want Germany and Russia to be interdependent because German and Russian interdependency would probably create grounds for a rapprochement.
		Between the continental European countries and Russia.
		If Germany and Russia are dependent on each other for revenue or for energy, then they become politically closer.
		And if Germany is the anchor of NATO and the European Union, then maybe that creates pressure on the United States within the Defense Alliance to soften their position on Russia.
		So the United States wants Germany to be firmly within the orbit of Washington, not Moscow.
		So that's why they oppose the Nord Stream pipeline.
		It's because they do not want Germany to be dependent on the Russian gas.
		Of course, this has come to the fore during this war in Ukraine.
		In February, when Russia invaded Ukraine, the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz suspended the import of natural gas through the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline under pressure from Washington.
		Now the situation is a little bit different because Russia is threatening to shut off all of their energy that they send to Europe which is going to pose severe challenges to the European continent in the winter and that's because it gets warmer or rather it gets colder actually.
		Wouldn't you know it gets colder in the winter and so the businesses and the individual consumers will need more energy to stay warm and to keep their businesses going.
		If the energy costs go up, if they don't have enough energy and there's not a good way to get more of it if the Russian natural gas stops, there's no way to replace all of it.
		The energy demand is gonna be so great, it will drive costs up, and what will happen then is that businesses will begin to close.
		When businesses close, people become unemployed.
		When people become unemployed, they can't pay their gas bills even more and so then they get in the streets and there's all kinds of problems.
		An energy crisis is problematic because the economy runs on energy.
		So it's not just that people are going to get cold.
		It's that, in particular, the industry in Germany will grind to a halt without cheap Russian energy.
		And if that happens, there will be a major recession, a deep, major recession with layoffs and unemployment, and that has implications too.
		That has political and social implications, because widespread unemployment leads to idleness, and idleness and resentment leads to civil unrest.
		And so this spells chaos!
		For continental Europe, for Germany, for Italy, for Poland, for Czech Republic, and for all the Eastern European countries, potentially for the United Kingdom.
		And so, you would say that this has introduced a new dynamic in the conflict.
		And the approach of winter, which was not a factor earlier this year, it wasn't until the spring that Russia began to threaten the energy supply to Central Europe.
		Now that winter is approaching, it is creating pressure on the European countries to perhaps reduce their support for Ukraine or drop the sanctions regime against Russia.
		And the pressure comes from the economy and it comes from the people.
		The Europeans can only push this for so long.
		Eventually the chickens come home to roost.
		They can only participate in this charade for so long before their own people begin to overthrow them.
		Because the Germans, and the Italians, and the Czech, and the Polish, Maybe they supported the war against Russia in Ukraine back in February when there really wasn't a tremendous cost.
		But if it comes at the cost a year later of a major recession and you lose your job and your energy cost goes up a thousand percent, well then you're talking about a change in government one way or the other.
		So it puts this huge pressure then on the continental European countries to perhaps try and get that natural gas back, get the energy back by softening their stance on Russia, which the U.S.
		doesn't want.
		So just yesterday, and we covered this, there was a huge protest in Germany.
		Thousands of people turned out and they demanded that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline be turned back on because of what I've just described.
		The same day, both the Nord Stream 2 and the Nord Stream 1 pipeline mysteriously malfunctioned.
		And they say that the pressure in the pipelines dropped to almost zero, meaning that there was some sort of rupture or a breach or damage done to the pipelines.
		And the Germans and the Danish investigated and they said there was no damage on land, so the damage must have occurred in the sea.
		And the Baltic Sea is very shallow, you can dive.
		To the depth of the Baltic Sea as a recreational diver, I believe.
		The pipelines are not that deep.
		It's not like the ocean.
		So in other words, it's accessible.
		It's accessible by a submarine, accessible by a special forces team, potentially.
	And so the Danish and the German government began to suspect that it was sabotage.
	If they both got taken out at the same time, and if they're vulnerable and exposed in the Baltic Sea, they also noticed there were American vessels in the area.
	They said that maybe they were sabotaged.
	And we talked about yesterday how the prime suspect in this would be the United States.
	The Germans can't capitulate to the Russians for gas if the pipelines are destroyed.
	The pipelines were damaged so irreparably it would be so costly to repair them that it would be prohibitive.
	So they can't be repaired.
	They won't be repaired.
	The gas isn't coming back.
	So it's almost a way of the United States to say, now that's just off the table.
	If you thought you were capitulating, if you thought you were going to get relief on natural gas, we took care of that for you.
	That's no longer an option.
	You cannot do that.
	You cannot make that deal.
	And that was the theory yesterday.
	Well, today we've got some proof for this.
	And this is according to Russia Today.
	It says, quote, Nord Stream 1 and 2 both suddenly lost pressure on Monday.
	Danish authorities reported a gas leak off Bornholm, while Swedish seismologists registered multiple explosions.
	The pipeline operator confirmed multiple gas lines suffered unprecedented damage, and it was impossible to estimate when or if service might be restored.
	By Monday evening, the German government was convinced the pipeline was targeted in a deliberate attack.
	According to a daily paper, Berlin was considering the possibility that Ukraine or Ukraine-affiliated forces could be behind it.
	And who would be a Ukrainian-affiliated force?
	NATO!
	NATO's the affiliated force.
	The United States.
	But they also considered it could be a false flag by Russia to make Ukraine look bad.
	And drive European Union energy prices even higher.
	Although that doesn't make much sense because the Russian government can control if the gas flows or not.
	So to say that they needed to blow up the pipelines to drive prices higher, they didn't need to blow them up.
	They built them!
unidentified		The Russian government paid to build them.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Under immense diplomatic pressure and at a great cost, they built the pipeline.
		Why would they destroy them if they could just turn them off?
		And why would they need a false flag?
		But the German government says it's foul play.
		Earlier on Tuesday, U.S.
		Secretary of State Antony Blinken said an attack on Nord Stream was, quote, in no one's interest.
		Really?
		It was in no one's interest?
		But that it also represented a significant opportunity for Europe to abandon Russian natural gas in favor of alternative energy supplies, presumably such as liquefied natural gas exported by the United States.
		End quote.
		Accelerate the transition to renewables in order to fight climate change.
		So the Germans and the Danish are convinced that It was an act of sabotage.
		And of course it was.
		Obviously it was.
		If two of the pipelines go down, if one of them went down, you could say maybe it was, like some said, sediment, maybe it was an old World War II mine that was exploded for some reason.
		Those don't even really make sense.
		Pipelines are not laid under the Baltic Sea where a little mudslide is going to destroy, is going to explode them.
		It's going to explode them.
		They're not built in such a way.
unidentified		Oh, whoops!
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Oops!
		Bumped into a World War II era mine in the middle of the biggest war in Europe since the 1940s.
		There's not even really a good, plausible explanation that is not sabotage.
		But even if there was, it would be more plausible if it only affected one.
		But they both get destroyed, that's obviously sabotage.
		It just is.
		So if these two pipelines explode in the middle of the war with Ukraine, when energy politics becomes, as I said before, so much more relevant in the coming months, Who would be the culprit then?
		And the working theories would be, well, it pertains, obviously, to the war in Ukraine and the energy politics which is influencing that.
		And who would be the major players?
		Who would be capable of such a thing?
		Well, there's, just in terms of capability and party, people that are party to the conflict, you've got Russia and the United States.
		So who would blow up the pipeline?
		Would it be Russia, who paid money to build the pipeline, and controls the gas that flows through it, and they could just turn it off?
		Or would it be the United States, where it's a geo-strategic necessity for those pipelines not to exist, because their very existence compromises their ally Germany, which is the anchor of NATO on the continent.
		And, The pipelines get blown up and Germany will, with or without the war, have to replace and substitute that natural gas from some other country.
		Where do they get it now?
		What's the alternative to natural gas delivered by pipeline from Russia?
		Well, it's an alternative called liquefied natural gas, which is sent on cargo ships from the United States.
		So who do you think would be the likely culprit?
		Russia, who built the pipeline and can turn them off, or the United States, who will now reap the benefit of supplying the alternative to the gas sent through the pipelines, and who opposed the Nord Stream 2 pipeline for as long as it was considered and constructed and finished,
		And who will now draw Germany closer into its embrace now that German and Russian trade will not bring them closer together.
		Well, obviously it's the United States.
		And everybody seems to agree with that.
		There was a U.S.
		apparatchik who said, rather, thank you U.S.
		for blowing up the pipeline.
		And there was a Polish member of parliament as well.
		This is from Russia Today.
		A Polish minister and member of the European Parliament, Radoslaw Sikorski, Said thank you USA on Tuesday alongside a photo of the massive gas leak in the waters of the Baltic Sea.
		Sikorsky later tweeted in Polish, the damage to Nord Stream means that Russia will have to talk to the countries controlling the Brotherhood and Yamal gas pipelines, which are Ukraine and Poland, if it wishes to continue delivering gas to Europe.
		Good work, he said.
		And this is not just any member of parliament says Russia Today.
		Sikorsky is a former UK citizen and a fellow at numerous US and NATO think tanks as well as Poland's former defense and foreign minister.
		So...
		The guy's a spook.
		He's a citizen of the United Kingdom.
		He's in the think tanks.
		Okay, the guy's a freaking spook.
		And he goes out there and says, hey, thanks America for blowing up the pipeline.
		It might as well be case closed here.
		And there's not really huge takeaways.
		It's just a development.
		This is just how the United States is choosing to play.
		What's the takeaway?
		Well, There's something in there about hypocrisy and about the way that the war is going.
		We're at war with Russia.
		We're at war with Russia.
		And how did we get here?
		We've talked about it at length over the past seven months, but I think we talked about this a little bit last week.
		It's pretty incredible that this should be the most significant thing going on right now in the world.
		And to some extent I suppose it is.
		But it seems like people don't really understand the gravity of this.
		That we are involved in this conflict is a failure of our government.
		How do we get ourselves involved in a straight-up war?
		We're bombing a Russian pipeline so they can't give gas to Germany.
		That's just an act of war.
		Like I said last week, this isn't a proxy war.
		When you're supplying, when you're training the troops, when you're giving them the guns, you're giving them the artillery, and the missiles, and the stingers, and you're giving them the intelligence, and the coordinates of the targets, and you're giving them direction, and you're blowing up their pipelines, and you're sanctioning their banks, and you're blocking their foreign currency reserves,
		And when you're supporting other countries on your border starting wars like Tajikistan and Azerbaijan, you're at war!
		You're just at war.
		It's not a proxy war anymore.
		We are at war with Russia.
		Do people realize that?
		I know everybody talks about it, you know, pray for Ukraine and all this.
	We're at war with Russia.
	It's not a total war yet.
	It's not even really fully a hot war fully.
	There's still these diplomatic restraints because we're still sort of on this on-ramp to a direct confrontation with Russia.
	What do I mean by that?
	Russians and Americans are fighting in Ukraine.
	Make no mistake about it.
	American mercenaries are fighting Russian soldiers.
	That is happening in Ukraine.
	And Ukrainians, trained by Americans, funded by Americans, armed by Americans, given direction by American officers, are fighting Russians.
	Americans are giving the coordinates for the Ukrainians to shoot down Russian ships.
	And they're providing logistics and support for Ukrainian counterattacks against the Russians.
	And the Russians know this, and we know this.
	I don't think the American public broadly understands the extent of our involvement.
	I don't think they understand how far we're involved in it.
	And the only reason why America isn't attacking Russia on Russian soil, and Russia's not attacking America on American soil, and why these declarations of war have not been announced, is because both parties are really still coming to terms with this.
	You've seen these escalations, which have really gone back eight years.
	It really goes back to 2014 when we did a coup on Russia's border and they invaded and these ceasefire agreements that were drawn up between the Russian-backed separatists and Donbass and the Kiev government between 2014 and 2022 All along, the United States was building up the Ukrainian army.
	The United States and NATO were building up the Ukrainian army, giving them money, giving them lethal aid, giving them Turkey selling them drones, building up their strength so they could eventually counterattack Russia, and then become part of NATO, and become part of the European Union.
	And 2022 is only the continuation, it's only a continuation of that escalation of those hostilities.
	From eight years ago.
	And then since the conflict broke out, since Russia assembled its troops on the border, and made their threats, and made their ultimatum, and then moved in, and the special military operation started, it has only escalated ever since.
	People think it's just this tit-for-tat.
	It's escalating.
	It's been escalating.
	It's been escalating for eight years.
	And then, as I said, once the war broke out, it's been escalating since.
	When America started signing these huge checks, $40 billion for Ukraine, that was a game changer.
	That was an escalation.
	When Russia gave the coordinates for the Russian ship in the Black Sea, the missile carrier, which Ukraine sank, that was an escalation.
	The other month, when NATO directed these three counterattacks by Ukraine against Russian positions, that was an escalation.
	When the United States blows up, and it's obvious that that's what happened.
	This is not a conspiracy.
	That happened.
	The CIA or, you know, a NATO ship, an American ship blew up the pipelines.
	It's an escalation.
	And this is sort of a nice segue into the next subject.
	As these four territories are annexed by Russia, that's an escalation too, because now the war goes from fighting Russia directly, but kind of indirectly in another country, to we're directly attacking claimed Russian territory.
	We're directly attacking Russian people and Russian territory that's claimed by Russia.
	That'll be another escalation.
	And so, make no mistake about it, this conflict is ongoing.
	It is about as direct as it can be.
	We're in this situation where it's not static.
	It's moving closer and closer towards what we're gonna be bombing Russia and Russia's gonna be bombing us and nuclear weapons may be deployed like it's not a joke and that's been part of the conversation from the beginning that's what kicked all this off was Zelensky went to the Munich Security Conference in February and said He said that according to the, uh, what was it?
	The Budapest Memorandum of 1994.
	So, Zelensky at the Munich Conference last February, okay, in February 2022, he brought up the Budapest Memorandum.
	And the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 dealt with all these Soviet-era nuclear warheads that were in the borderlands.
	Russia controlled the Soviet Union.
	Uh, but once the Soviet Union fell apart, Russia and all the other territories became sovereign states.
	So as such, Russia's, the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal was in all these other third world countries, second world countries.
	So, Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Kazakhstan had nuclear weapons, Belarus had nuclear weapons, and formally those were...
	So Russia had to bring all those nuclear arsenals back to Russia and they did so with the Budapest Memorandum.
	They had negotiated and the deal was this in 1994.
	because I know the capital there.
	So they belong to all those states.
	So Russia had to bring all those nuclear arsenals back to Russia, and they did so with the Budapest Memorandum.
	They had to negotiate it, and the deal was this in 1994.
	They said if Ukraine gives up the nukes that they have back to Russia, then Russia has to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty.
	In other words, Russia promises, if you give us the nukes, we won't invade.
	And NATO is supposed to guarantee that promise.
	So Zelensky brings this up in February.
	Nuclear.
	Zelensky brings this up at the Munich Security Conference in February and says, we signed the Budapest Memorandum.
	He says, I've asked the West to hold up their end of the deal multiple times.
	In other words, come to our defense.
	Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and fueled the separatist movement in Donbass.
	And he said, and the West has not come to our aid.
	I've asked for their help, we held up our end of the bargain, we gave them the nukes, but now we're under attack.
	And he said in February that next time, I'm not going to ask, we're going to look at other parts of the deal.
	And basically said, we'll get nuclear weapons again.
	If you don't protect us, then why should we hold up, why should we continue to hold up our end of the bargain?
	We'll renuclearize.
	So you've got this animal, you've got this psychopath in Kiev on the border with Russia with 200,000 troops surrounding him that they're gonna get a nuclear arsenal.
	And then Russia announces in the special military operation on February 24th, he said that we'll use every mean to protect Russia.
	We're gonna conduct a special military operation to protect Russian people and these other goals.
	And if you interfere, We will defend ourselves.
	And Russia's a nuclear state, so that means a nuclear arsenal is part of that.
	And the United States said, well, we don't care.
	We're going in anyway.
	And so, when Putin gave his speech last week, he brought back up nuclear.
	And he said, we'll use our nuclear arsenal to defend ourselves.
	Well, he's sending a pretty clear message here.
	That he can't lose this war.
	Russia cannot lose this war.
	This is an impasse.
	But the United States is not willing to give any concession here.
	Russia is... there's no ceiling to how far they're willing to escalate.
	And it seems like that's not... like that's the case for the United States as well.
	And you know what that means.
	If there's no... if there's no way to stop this from escalating, we all know where that goes.
	So, to me, that's the takeaway.
	And it's this regime.
	It is this regime in Washington.
	If Trump were president, this would not be happening.
	And I know that may sound silly or something, but it's just true.
	If Trump were the president right now, instead of Biden, this would not be happening.
	And you want to know why?
	Because Biden is not really in charge.
	That's why.
	It is the permanent bureaucracy in the Defense Department, and the State Department, and the Pentagon.
	It is these nut job warmongers that are in charge.
	We all know that.
	The National Security Council and the top brass in the Pentagon and the DoD, they're the ones calling the shots on this.
	It is totally outside of the White House's control.
	It is totally outside of Joe Biden's control.
	He could not exert restraint if he wanted to, if he were even capable.
	That's why it would have been different.
	If Trump were president, because he is energetic and because he's mentally there, and also because he resists war, he could have brought these people to heel.
	He could have brought NATO and Washington to heel.
	Germany and France and Italy, they did not want this conflict.
	The continent did not want this conflict.
	It is London, which is up with the Washington cartel, they're the ones that wanted the war.
	London and Washington wanted the war with Russia.
	And the one guy that could have stopped it was Donald Trump.
	He was the guy.
	Just like he did throughout his term.
	John Bolton wanted us to go to war with Iran.
	Didn't happen.
	They wanted a war with Iran, and they did pursue some backdoor regime change type things, but never, never turned into a war.
	In his first year, in his first three months, Trump stopped pursuing regime change in Syria.
	That was the official stance.
	April 2017, you can go back, it was Nikki Haley, who was the UN ambassador at the time, reluctantly I'm sure, said we're no longer pursuing regime change.
	Mike Pompeo, who was the then, well I guess he was the CIA director, it was Rex Tillerson, who was the Secretary of State, said we're no longer pursuing regime change.
	That was April.
	That was three months after the inauguration.
	No regime change in Syria.
	No regime change in Syria.
	No regime change in Iran.
	They wanted it in Venezuela.
	No regime change in Venezuela.
	The United States made some mistakes with Russia.
	They repealed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and they began supplying Ukraine with lethal aid.
	And so there were some problems there.
	But it never would have gotten this far under Trump.
	And that's because Trump still wants what's best for America.
	These other people, I don't know what's going on with them.
	They want world domination or something.
	They don't want what's best for America.
	They don't care if America blows up in a nuclear Armageddon or something.
	They're greedy.
	They want Berlin.
	They want Europe.
	They want our 5G there.
	They want our liquefied natural gas there.
	They want to carve up the world.
	And they're playing a very dangerous game with all of our lives.
	It wouldn't have happened under Trump.
	And remember, this would have happened, by the way, in the first term.
	I don't know if you recall, but this saber-rattling with Russia began long before the Russian collusion narrative about Trump.
	It was October 2016, when Biden, the then-Vice President, came out and said that he would retaliate against Russia for these so-called cyber-attacks.
	And if Clinton got in, this probably would have happened four years earlier.
	Trump could have stayed in in 2020, but we got screwed over by the GOP.
	We got screwed over by the mail-in ballots.
	And now we're all gonna reap the consequence.
	I hope we survive.
	I hope we make it.
	It just goes to show how catastrophic that result was.
	And that's why anybody that was not on the ground for Stop the Steal, like, this is your, this is kind of your fault.
	Seriously.
	Because we had a chance to turn this around and now, like, all bets are off.
	The country's being invaded.
	We're at war with Russia.
	The debt is $30 trillion.
	Inflation is 10%.
	Interest rates are higher than they've been in 20 years.
	At the same time, stock market's about to crash.
	Like, it couldn't, like, how could it get worse?
	We're at a real crisis in just about every way that you can measure it, and it's all because of this leadership.
	If there was no Biden, if Trump was in, the border would be secure, the economy would be straightened out.
	Maybe.
	Certainly, we'd be taking a different track than we are now.
	We'd be energy independent, that's for sure.
	There'd be no food or gas inflation.
	The situation with Russia would be mitigated.
	Just goes to show elections have consequences if you thought it didn't matter.
	It really does!
	It really does now!
	So that's sort of the takeaway from Nord Stream 1 and 2.
	Our featured story is similar, so I don't want to totally break.
	This is the other big development.
	We talked about this last week.
	As Russia announced a referendum in four territories in southeastern Ukraine, and the voting has commenced in the past week, In Zaporizhia, in Luhansk, in Donetsk, and in Kursan.
	And it went on, I believe, from the 23rd until the 27th.
	And the results are officially in.
	All four territories have voted overwhelmingly to break away from Ukraine and to join Russia.
	Well, Donbass already declared independence.
	There's Kursan and Zaporizhia, which...
	Are broken apart from Kiev.
	So this is a story from Russia today.
	It says, quote, the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, along with Kherson region and part of Zaporizhia region in southern Ukraine, have voted to join Russia in referendums that were held between September 23rd and 27th.
	In Luhansk, more than 98% of voters have supported the idea to join Russia, according to official figures, which have all the ballots counted.
	Donetsk has shown similar results with more than 99% of voters supporting the move.
	Both Zaporizhia and Kherson regions have processed all the ballots by late Tuesday with 93% and 87% of voters respectively backing the split from Ukraine and reunification with Russia.
unidentified		Let's go!
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		And I like how high the number is because is it possible that it's that high?
		Maybe.
		Maybe.
		I like that it's so high because I'm really just willing to believe it.
		And I like how mad that makes NATO faggots.
		They're like, 99% that's a fake, that's a rigged election.
		Yeah, it's real.
		That's real.
		No, it was unanimous.
		It was unanimous.
		There wasn't one person.
		There wasn't one person in all of East Ukraine that did not want to join Russia.
		It was unanimous.
		How could you argue with that?
		Well, there was a fake.
unidentified		It wasn't a free and fair election.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it was.
		Yeah, it was.
		Yeah, well, what?
		You love democracy.
		Now you don't like democracy?
		Looks legit to me.
		They voted, didn't they?
		They went out and cast their vote.
unidentified		Big money wage is the most secure election in history.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		The most secure election in history.
		You can't argue with democracy.
		This is what democracy looks like, man.
		This is what democracy looks like.
		Let's go!
		They only like democracy when we're electing black people to rape our country.
		That's democracy.
		They go on the city square and burn the village down, and then they tear down the statues and say, and they take off their clothes, and guys and guys are kissing, and girls and girls are kissing, and they're all fat, and they say, this is what democracy looks like.
		No, this is what democracy looks like!
		You wanted it, you got it.
		Live by the ballot, die by the ballot, die by the ballot!
		Get annexed to Russia by the ballot!
		Succumb to the glory of Russia by the ballot!
		Succumb to Tsar Putin by the ballot!
		This is what you asked for, you bitch!
		You wanted liberal democracy?
		You wanted a free and fair election?
		Be careful what you wish for.
		This is National Endowment for Democracy certified a free and fair election.
		Most secure in history.
		They're all joining Russia.
		So I like it.
		I like that the numbers are that high.
		Because they probably could be that high.
		I mean, they probably could be.
		But it also just looks like it's not legit, and that just makes it all the better to say that it is.
		And honestly though, what is the argument?
		Election fraud doesn't happen.
		Election fraud can't happen.
unidentified		Oh, so what you're saying is they rigged the election.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, how did they do that?
		How did they do that?
		You're telling me there was a conspiracy and nobody would blow the whistle?
		It's impossible to rig an election like that.
		It's impossible to rig an election so big.
		And even if there was rigging, it was so negligible.
		The result was 99%.
		So what did they rig it by?
unidentified		2%?
unidentified		Where possible?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Please.
		Sounds like a dangerous conspiracy theory.
		That sounds like dangerous misinformation.
		And we're living in this post-truth age.
		We need to agree on this.
		You're not entitled to your own set of facts.
		You may be entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts.
		Those people voted to join Russia, overwhelmingly.
		Now that is unironically true, by the way.
		That is unironically true, that the people, whether the result was 99 or, you know, 60%, they voted overwhelmingly to join Russia.
		We know this.
		Why?
		Because all the people there are Russian and speak Russian.
		And the Ukrainian government is run by Galician neo-Nazis.
		And I don't say that, like, pejoratively, just, that's what they are.
		The government has been taken over by Galician neo-Nazis and the security force and the military.
		And they have banned the Russian language and put on all these anti-Russian policies in Ukraine.
		So, is it really a big surprise they all voted to join Russia?
		I don't think so.
		I don't think that's even controversial.
		So, and the irony is lost for a lot of people about the significance of this.
		Because in truth, there was a coup in 2014.
		There was a Western-backed coup that made on in 2014, and it wasn't benign.
		The government that the West installed was straight-up anti-Russian.
		When I say Russophobic, I'm not joking around.
		They hate Russians.
		This is all a bunch of silly Balkan business to me, but it's real.
		The government in Kiev, which is run by Ukrainians, they hate Russians.
		They have an ethnic hatred for the Russians.
		That's why they banned the Russian language.
		That's why they persecute Russians.
		It's what they did.
		And they were at war with Donbass for eight years and used drones against them and bombed them viciously.
		So...
		You know, so I think the irony is lost on a lot of people.
		They talk about this democracy and this liberalism that we're defending.
		What are we really defending here?
		If these people want to break away, if these people want to secede because they're being given the systematic racism by the government, and I'm not the one to say it's justified because of systemic racism or something, but it does add a layer of hypocrisy.
		And that's not the main angle I go with because I don't really care that much.
		I'm more interested in the strategy behind it, the politics of it.
		But it is a little bit rich because the United States derives its soft power from its moral high ground in saying that, you know, we're a democracy and we're for human rights and we're for liberalism.
		And they're backing this regime, which is by definition Russophobic.
		They're backing a country that has these historic cleavages based on ethnicity and religion and other factors across the river, and a country which has really been created over the centuries with these weird add-ons and administrative flukes.
		Crimea should have never been part of Ukraine.
		It was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev in the 50s.
		Now Crimea must be part of Ukraine until the end of time?
		It doesn't even make sense.
		The only reason that Ukraine is its own country is because of how the Soviet Union was organized under Lenin in 1922, and by Joseph Stalin, who was the Secretary of the nations, of the countries within the Soviet Union.
		So point being is it's this big fluke.
		And anyway, that's really besides the point.
		It's a country that's deeply divided with these ethnic tensions and what we're there backing up is clearly born out of nothing other than naked strategic interest is the point I'm trying to make.
		The only reason they're backing this government in this complex situation where arguably the government's in the wrong there.
		The Kiev government is abusive and racist and so on.
		The only reason we're doing it is because of naked political self-interest.
		But we're going to tell the world that it's about standing up against dictatorship.
		It's not about dictatorship.
		It's not about autocracy.
		It's about power.
		It's about the grain and the energy resources, the agricultural product and the energy resources that Ukraine has.
		It's got to do with their natural gas reserves just discovered in the Black Sea.
		It's got to do with the shale oil in Ukraine.
		It's got to do with their bountiful soil that they have.
		It's the breadbasket of Europe and Ukraine.
		It's got to do with NATO and their posture on the Russian border.
	That's what it's about.
	It's not about whether they have a democratic government or not.
	That's just a little bit rich.
	It adds a layer of irony.
	And then you go in on something like this, where Russia invades, and they have these referendums, and now of course the Western media is going to come out and say, oh, well that vote was rigged.
	Really?
	Why?
unidentified		And they go, well, because it's obvious.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Russia invaded and the military was there and something.
		So what's the point?
		People vote by the ballot.
		They count the votes.
		You get the results.
		I thought elections can't be... isn't that what they say?
		We had half of our ballots in 2020 were mail-in ballots.
		And that passes the smell test.
		We don't even need to look into it.
		We're just gonna dogmatically repeat.
		Most secure election in history.
		Most secure election in history.
		Freest and fairest election in history.
		Half the ballots, they solicit them by sending them in the mail.
		In other words, the government drops it off at the House, and then it shows up at a Dropbox, and they count the vote, and they don't check?
		They don't audit the signature, they don't audit any of the information?
		If you say that's rigged, you're horrible and no good.
		This one's obviously rigged.
		So these things are not really that interesting to me, but it does just add a little something.
		It's like, let's just be real about what's going on.
		Let's just dispense with the facade that this is about ideas and about... Politics at home and politics abroad is all about power.
		It's not about values.
		When they say the election was not rigged here, that's because they like the outcome.
		That's because they got what they wanted.
		That they have the people that they want running the country.
		And the same thing in Ukraine.
		Why are those elections not good?
		Because it was the Russians.
		When they did the Maidan, even though that was undemocratic, they don't care.
		When they did the first color revolution in Ukraine in 2004, they didn't care that it was technically unconstitutional.
		They got the outcome they wanted.
		And then they hailed that as a triumph of democracy.
		So in 2004, when Who's the new president?
		They got Yanukovych out and it was... The name was very similar.
		I forget the other guy's name.
		What is it?
unidentified		I don't know.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I can't think of it off the top of my head.
		The point being is, they overthrew the government in 2004 with these revolutions.
		Yanukovych gets re-elected.
		There's mass protests.
		They say, oh, we need another round of voting, which is not in the Constitution.
		They hold another round of voting, and then the Western-backed leader gets in, whose name I forget.
		Then they hold another election and Yanukovych gets re-elected.
		He's the most trusted politician in the country, the favorite, and then everybody says, he's a Russian stooge, this country's rigged, blah blah blah.
		So they overthrow him in 2014 with a straight-up revolution and they get this new government with Poroshenko, I believe.
		And then they say, yep, that was democratic, what a liberal democracy, this is the best thing ever.
		So if these, think of it, if these territories said that they voted to stay with Ukraine, the United States would say it's valid.
		But if they vote to join Russia, they say it's not valid.
		They said the referendum in Crimea was not valid, even though that was a, that's a Russian peninsula.
		And again, I'm less interested in pointing the finger and saying, you're a hypocrite, you don't mean what you say, you're a liar.
		What I am interested in is demonstrating to people that We've just got to drop the the rose tinted glasses, the ideological coloring of all this and just look at it in terms of just the politics of it.
		Like I'm in this debate with Destiny about it months ago and he's telling me the United States doesn't interfere in other countries business like Russia does.
		It's like what planet are you living on?
		What planet are you living on?
		He thinks that the State Department NGOs are just full of well-meaning liberals who believe in democracy Like, were you born yesterday?
		And so it is with things like this.
		It's about politics.
		And anyway, so they all vote to join Russia by 99%, and I believe it.
		I support it.
		And it says, quote, the process of integrating new regions into Russia may take some time as it requires the approval of the country's parliament and the president.
		But Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Friday that he was convinced it will be fast enough.
		Under the Russian Constitution and the federal law on the accession of new constituent members, the procedure includes several steps.
		Once the regions willing to become part of the Russian Federation submit their proposals to Moscow, the President should inform Parliament and the government on the matter.
		Moscow warned earlier that if the Donbass Republics and the two southern Ukrainian regions united with Russia, it would consider any attempts by Kiev to retake them as a tax on its own land.
		The EU and the US have already called the voting a sham and the Secretary of State said that the regions will never be recognized as part of Russian territory.
		He added that Kiev had every right to take them back.
		So all these regions are now part of Russia.
		We looked at the map last week.
		I guess I'll pull it up one more time and I'll show you in case you forgot.
		just so you can get an idea again.
		Let me just throw this up on the screen real quick.
unidentified		Okay.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Just so you can get an idea, this is what is being annexed by Russia.
		Okay, we'll take the cookies, we'll take the ads.
		These are the four regions.
		This is what is being annexed and will now join Russia.
		Can we get a better map that maybe shows where the war is going on?
unidentified		Okay.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		This is my map.
		This is the one I like.
		Okay.
		So you can see here, this is what's under Russian control and this white area is what is claimed by Russia but is still under control of the Ukrainians.
		See here?
		This is where the Ukrainians retook land in Kherson.
		And here in Zaporizhia and here by Donetsk and up here by Kharkiv.
		And so here's how, just to give you an idea, this is what's going on.
		This is the Russian front line.
		And so Russia's done two things.
		It's annexed these four territories and it has conscripted 300,000 reservists.
		And the idea is that the reservists will be sent in to defend.
		And the front line, which is now mostly comprised of local forces, local militias and non-Russians, they will continue fighting.
		And as the conscripted Russian soldiers train on the defensive line, eventually they'll be rotated out.
		And so the idea is that, in short order, for the first time in the conflict, you'll have a Russian army.
		Up until this point, largely it has been the militias doing the bulk of the work.
		It has been the militias from Luhansk and Donetsk.
		It is their fighters.
		And other non-Russians, people from Chechnya and Syria, and other mercenaries who have been doing much of the fighting for the Russians.
		Now that the Russians have conscripted these 300,000 reserve troops, and they're gonna train them, and these guys will be Russians, they will be rotated into the front lines gradually.
		And there's sort of two things changing here.
		It's now a Russian army, which is much larger.
		The initial invading force was 150,000.
		This is now 300,000 Russian troops.
		Not militia, not mercenaries, not these Syrians or Chechens.
		These are Russian soldiers.
		So that's a change.
		It's way more people and they're Russians.
		And the other thing is now that these four territories have been annexed, now the fighting is going to occur within these territories.
		In other words, when they were considered part of Ukraine or independent, Zaporizhia and Kursan were considered part of Ukraine, Donetsk and Luhansk were considered independent states, The fighting up until this point has theoretically been happening in not Russia, in Ukraine or in these two breakaway republics.
		So Russia's fighting a special military operation in another country for other countries, for the Ukrainian Russians or for the ethnic Russians in the breakaway republics in Donbass.
		Now the fighting is different because now you've got Russians fighting theoretically in Russia.
		Now that Russia's claiming the battlefield, now the battlefield is within Russia.
		So it goes from fighting a war in Ukraine for ethnic Russians in Ukraine to fighting to control Russian territory claimed by Russia.
		Totally different ballgame.
		So, like I said earlier, this is a major escalation.
		Where now, when Ukraine and NATO forces are fighting in these regions, they're fighting on Russian soil.
		As opposed to fighting in Ukraine.
		So now you've got NATO troops fighting Russians in Russia.
		Not fighting Russians in Ukraine, to defend Ukraine, ostensibly.
		And similarly, it's not Russians going to defend the interests of ethnic Russians abroad, they're fighting to secure control of their new territory.
		Totally different story.
		And so the diplomatic implication is pretty dramatic.
		The United States and NATO have tried to play this role where they're in, but not technically.
		They're providing every kind of support other than being directly engaged.
		And that has maybe been acceptable.
		They've been able to operate with a little bit of ambiguity because the battlefield is in Ukraine.
		Because Ukraine is the victim and Russia's the aggressor.
		And they're sort of playing on defense.
		Now they're not really.
		Now they're on somebody else's turf.
		And so how will Russia take it then?
		Is Russia going to escalate against NATO?
		Is Russia going to escalate against Ukraine?
		Are they going to use air power?
		Are they going to use weapons of mass destruction?
		What is that going to look like?
		Are they going to be less considerate of casualties?
		Who knows?
		Or collateral damage, I should say.
		So the war is about to change fundamentally, and this is all going to happen in the next couple weeks.
		These regions, they finished the vote today, they're all set to join.
		It should be approved in very short order within this week, I've heard some say.
		Within this week, this next week, they will join Russia and officially be part of Russia.
	And these 300,000 conscripts are being sent out there, So it looks like Russia is not messing around anymore.
	And that, of course, is coupled with what's going on with energy.
	You've got the $300,000 coming in, Russia has claimed the battlefield, and now the European countries supplying all this stuff, and who are participating in the sanctions regime and depriving Russia of the revenue for the gas, they're about to enter a very cold winter where they don't have enough energy, where energy demand will exceed supply.
	All of this bodes well for Russia.
	And they've really just achieved a checkmate here.
	What does a victory condition look like at this point?
	Do you think that Russia's going to claim these territories through a referendum and then Ukraine is somehow going to recapture all of them and Russia will ever accept that?
	It's just not going to happen.
	It's a done deal.
	They control that land, they took it.
	Now that, I don't think that'll be the end of it.
	But that could be the end of it theoretically.
	That's the end of it as far as Ukraine is concerned.
	They're not getting those territories back.
	Russia's at least getting that much.
	So what's the play here?
	Bombing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline shows that we're not backing down either.
	Russia says, there's no ceiling to how much we can escalate.
	We can nuke you, and we've got 25 million people we could call into battle.
	That's what they said last week.
	Putin and the defense minister came out there and said, we'll nuke you to defend ourselves, and also, we're only mobilizing 1% of what we could mobilize, which is 25 million Russians with military experience.
	And we're annexing these four territories.
	And what did the United States do in response to this limitless escalation?
	They escalated too.
	They said, okay, we'll blow up the pipelines and we're gonna give you another 40 billion dollars in Congress.
	They're considering another aid package.
	I think it's 20 or 40 billion dollars more for Ukraine.
	Which is just like unbelievable.
	We're closing in on a hundred, one hundred billion dollars for Ukraine.
	The cash payments to Americans during the first COVID stimulus when everybody got a $1,200 check, that cost $250 billion.
	So you could give everybody in the country $600.
	That's how much it's costing all of us.
	We've given Israel $250 billion.
	Something like that.
	Lower estimates will say $150 billion.
	It's probably closer to $250 billion.
	But in the life of the State of Israel since 1948, we've given that country, excluding all the wars, $250 billion.
	We've given Ukraine $100 billion since February.
	For what?
	Why?
	Why are we doing this?
	Where is this going to go?
	What is it going to lead to?
	What happens if Russia wins?
	What happens if, or rather when, Russia wins?
	What's going to be the off-ramp for us?
	Are we just going to accept it?
	You know, so we're gonna have to watch this and see how it plays out, but it's not good.
	None of this is good.
	I like it.
	I like that Russia is... they're playing to win here, and they should.
	They should press their advantage and they should try to make Europe and the United States back down.
	I totally believe that, but it doesn't bode well for any of us because we're all just gonna die or get conscripted.
	So that's the update in... That's the update in Ukraine.
	We're gonna watch and see how that plays out.
	I can't wait to see the map after this happens.
	I'm really just waiting to see Russia grow on the map.
	I can't wait to see the new map.
	October 2022 edition with an enlarged Russia.
	So... So that's what I have to say about that.
	Okay.
	We're gonna move on.
	We're gonna take a look at our Super Chats and we'll see what you guys have to say about all this.
	What's your reaction?
	So let's see.
	Let me get my water here.
unidentified		here.
		Let me get my headset.
		Okay.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Do this.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Alright, let's take a look at our Super Chats.

▲