All Episodes
Previous Next
July 28, 2025 - Rudy Giuliani
01:07:16
America's Mayor Live (721): A Tale of Two Wars (Part 1/2)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And this is America's Mayor Alive from New Hampshire.
Live free or die.
Kind of wakes you up to your responsibilities, huh?
So tonight's subject, they're going to be a little different.
It's going to be a tale of two wars.
Two wars that remarkably didn't have to happen.
It'd be very interesting to study in human history the number of wars that didn't have to happen.
I suspect a great many of them.
The one usually cited as an example and used quite a bit historically is the First World War.
Now, the Second World War, they believe, had to happen, they think largely because of the First World War, which created Hitler, which created the almost near impossibility that you wouldn't have a war.
Not sure that's right either, but let's just accept it for the purposes of what we're about to do.
So when Donald Trump left office and the Democrats were spending all their time on concocting some kind of exaggerated exaggeration of a protest into a riot,
into an insurrection, despite the fact that I would say one of the prototypes that we had after a summer, that summer of Democrat riots, I don't know in how many cities, 20, 30.
One of the unique characteristics that would tell you it was a riot and not a protest is when they were burning buildings down.
This was a protest without anything burning.
Anyone getting killed, except for the lies that took place, quickly answered.
And the murder that took place was a murder of, well, actually the death of four of the protesters, two of whom under conditions of one case, possibly first-degree murder and the other possibly negligent homicide.
So Donald Trump left office.
And here was, that was the Democrat attempt and then an out-of-office impeachment to try to stop him from ever coming back into office ever again.
And they made many attempts at that, many, many attempts at doing that.
They spent much more time on that than world affairs, which they seemed to be operating for the benefit of other nations, clearly for the benefit of China.
Of course, Biden had been paid for that.
And it seemed for the benefit of a whole group of other nations, not the United States.
The end result is Trump left a world at peace, except the contrivance of this so-called insurrection in America, which turns out to be produced and directed possibly by the Pelosi family, very, very wealthy family that made their money on insider trading.
And then her daughter went into Hollywood.
And she comes from a background of political intrigue in Baltimore and knows how to do political intrigue really, really well.
Little Nancy D'Alessandro.
So all of a sudden, within a very short period of time, a world that was virtually without war now has two wars.
Of course, it's preceded by possibly the most cowardly dereliction of duty at a time of military action by any world leader, much less an American president, and that is leaving people behind to die on purpose in Afghanistan.
The decision to take out the troops before the civilians, that the terrorists killed, definitely people who died because we made the mistake or they cheated and Biden became president.
The people who died during the evacuation in Afghanistan, including our 13 brave men and women of our military whose families would sit here and agree with me if I were to say the sole reason for their deaths is Joe Biden's irresponsible decision.
Not to mention all the people that died thereafter because they were unprotected by our military, which was taken out too quickly, leaving behind of anywhere from 20 to 80 billion dollars in military equipment that was then used against our friends and against us.
And of course, probably if we're talking about treason, if we're talking about treason, we need go no further than the abandonment of Begram Air Base, which is not made enough of.
Begram Air Base was and is 400 miles from China.
China has for many years wanted to displace the United States economically and militarily and threatens us at various times.
And of course, so does Russia.
Russia just recently threatened our allies, Finland and Sweden, with nuclear attack.
We had a base 400 miles from both.
We had a base called Begram.
It was a new base.
It was one of our best equipped in Asia or the Middle East.
And it was pointed directly at China and Russia and so close, oh gosh, you could drive there.
You could have used drones out of there.
A strategic location of A number one importance.
Biden gave it up for the benefit of China over the objection, we are told, of his entire military staff.
Not a single one of them, preferring the example more of Benedict Arnold and, let's say, Dwight Eisenhower or Douglas R. MacArthur as an American military person, kept their mouths shut as this treason carried itself out.
So we ended up with a war in Ukraine.
We know what happened.
We know where it is, and we know it can't be settled right now or isn't being settled right now.
Then somewhat thereafter, we had the attack of October 7 in Israel, which was an attack that was premeditated.
The plans make it clear it was an attack by Hamas, one of the most brutal and vicious terrorist groups in the world, a proxy of Iran, the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world.
And their plan was a straight out plan to kill maximum civilians, minimum military, and to go after fairly pacifist civilians.
And they carried it out.
And they carried it out brutally, and they carried it out viciously.
They killed children, they killed women, they killed men, they killed children in front of their parents, they killed parents in front of their children, they raped people, and they took hostages, including Americans, about which the United States did the same thing that we did in Afghanistan to now make it a rule.
The rule used to be we don't leave people behind.
Now we routinely do leave people behind.
That's the motto of the Biden administration, leave Americans behind.
Some of those Americans were recovered in various trades.
Finally, all of them, when we finally got a real president, Donald J. Trump.
But that war, the war in Afghanistan, that the war in Afghanistan that concluded, many people believe, and I think it's way beyond that.
I think what was going to happen anyway, Afghanistan made it possible.
Putin, after all, attacked under Bush, under Obama.
That's when he took most of it, really.
And under Biden, he skipped Trump.
So there's really no denying the fact that he didn't want to test Trump.
And this war only took place because we had a weakling, a coward, and a traitor in the White House.
A traitor in giving up pogrom, among other things, and taking all that money from China.
Connecting the war in Israel to that is a little harder.
You may have some logical arguments to the contrary that the war might have taken place anyway.
I doubt it.
In any event, it didn't.
And Trump left the White House with the world at peace, America in the middle of another Democrat fraud.
And he takes over a country with Democrats now with multiple frauds going on, but the world in serious war, wars, wars that have anywhere from loose to fairly strong connection to alliances.
Now, a lot of the so-called experts don't make enough of this, but I've read several books on this that go back, back, back, back, back on how the world war started.
World War I was the first denominated world war.
And one of the things to look for on a world war is if the world is starting to divide into very, very well-defined, they call it Axis, or I would say alliances.
So you had that in World War I when the Archduke was killed in Serbia.
Not a major political assassination, obviously to them, of course, but worldwide, not a major one.
But the world was so divided into, Europe I'm talking about, was so divided into camps that were having skirmishes and disagreements and economic disagreements and any number of, and mostly land, disagreements over land and valuable property, that when the match lit, it was like on a tripwire going in two directions, right?
The batch lit in Sarajevo and the world went up in war with the U.S. joining somewhat near the end.
Very similarly in the Second World War, the divisions were the Axis powers, which were largely, some others tried to join, they were on the periphery, but it was Germany at the core, Italy and Japan on one side, and Russia that at some point joined Germany.
And then Russia played both sides.
They were with the Nazis and then they were with us after Hitler invaded them.
But basically it was those three on one side and England, France, most of the rest of Europe on the other side with Spain sort of neutral with Franco.
Would you call him a Nazi?
I don't think so.
Would you call him a fascist on a slightly lesser order than Mussolini and probably more intelligent than Mussolini because he didn't join the war yes.
So when the first, when the war first began in Europe, the alliances lined up the way they were organized in advance with Russia on the German side.
That changed due to Hitler's decision to attack them.
But the main thing is the United States.
So here's how it became a world war coming over to our continent when Japan attacked America.
So why wasn't there just a war between the United States and Japan?
Because Japan was allied to Germany and Italy, and we considered it an attack that was planned by all of them and declared war on all of them.
So here's, we have now or had, until the good work of B.B. Netanyahu, in the Middle East, we had a very, very tight alliance that had been established.
Iran had over the last 20 years nurtured a lot of it with our own money, including cash money given to them by another traitor of a president, Barack Obama.
Anyone who gives money to a terrorist who uses absolutely some of that money to kill his own people is a traitor to his own people.
We don't have to think about Obama and these other things and his scams to try to take Trump out of office.
Obama gave money to the world's leading terrorist at a time when it was well known that that terrorist, among other things, was killing Americans.
And he gave it to him in cash in the middle of the night on airplanes that were flown over there.
And he didn't tell anybody until he was caught.
Of course, he's a prince.
He's not allowed to be prosecuted.
Nor can you say anything bad about him.
And he may, in fact, been the most evil president in American history just by that alone.
This makes Benedict Arnold look like, well, one thing.
But he wasn't giving money to the English.
So now we have to end that war.
Trump was during the campaign quite confident that he could do it.
He could end it.
Even more confident with regard to the war in Ukraine.
Both have turned out to be very difficult to end.
And here's where it gets interesting.
And we can state one premise and then take it in two directions.
There's no give.
There's no obvious point of solution because of the positions of the four parties with the United States in the background and China and Russia, but mostly the United States.
And we're going to take a short break.
And when we come back, we're going to explain to you how that's the case and what my answer to it is.
Now, I'm doing it tonight this way, because as you are listening to me, I am on a plane headed to Rome, where I'm going to be meeting about the Iran situation and giving some speeches about it and some talks about it.
And as we go along during the week, we'll get you coverage of that as well.
So we'll take a short break and we'll be right back.
Priest Giuliani, and this is America's Mayor Live.
And this is a special edition of America's Mayor Live because it's live on tape.
As I said before, I am flying to Rome, Italy for a group of conferences with one of the major groups, the NCRI, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, and others to talk about the situation in Iran and to find out,
for example, about the slaughter today, I am informed, actually, just as I awaken, of two more members of that group being slaughtered by the Ayatollah.
There's quite a bit going on inside Iran, which we will get to in due course.
Right now, we're explaining what the barrier is to peace.
And the barrier to peace is simply described as there's no middle ground here.
That's obvious.
We might have thought there was middle ground at some point.
So let's take Israel first, because the lack of middle ground in Israel should be more obvious because it's only been there for, oh, I don't know, when did all of the insanity of a two-state solution take place?
originally in 1990 or so We're talking 35 years ago.
I should remember because I thought it was insane when I first heard it.
Now, here's why it's insane.
This is not an isolationist view or an interventionist view or a communist view.
This is just good old plain common sense.
Why are they in dispute?
They're in dispute because the Palestinians who live in Gaza and in the West Bank believe with very, very little, if any, historical support in terms of their nationality or their nation possessing that area, that it belongs to them.
Hence we get, you know, from the river to the sea and destroy Israel.
End of Israel.
That was the position of any number of Muslims and Arabs back in the 40s when the war first took place and in the 50s and in the 60s and 70s.
And Israel's decisive victories, some of which made the Arab armies look childish or useless, sort of ended that for most of the Arab countries.
But we created the problem with Palestine.
Almost none of the surrounding Arab countries has any real love, sympathy, or regard for the Palestinians.
Now, I say that because Jordan will not let them in.
Egypt will not let them in.
Jordan threw out a million of them.
Egypt has probably thrown out even more, but not in one large number.
Iran only plays with them because it has to.
They even have the Shia-Sunni Persian-Arab division with them.
And they be at the lower end of Arabs.
It is well known to the rest of the Muslim world, minus their own form of Iranian Shiite, that they have become maniacally homicidal,
starting with the Ayatollah's original takeover from the Shah, and not only have killed their people, but have killed their people in extraordinarily large numbers.
And when necessary, in order to keep them in place.
We have periods of time where we see the slaughter of 20 or 30,000 of their people.
Every once in a while, an incident broke out, like with the young woman whose hair was slightly out, and they killed her.
They have destroyed to the best of their ability every group that was allied with them in the effort to remove the Shah.
The most prominent group and the one that remains is the Mujaddin al-Khalk, otherwise the MEK, which has been in existence since before the Shah was out of power.
And when the original government was put together, the theory of the original government was going to be that there'd be a short interim government,
which there was, and then there'd be an election, and they would have some kind of parliamentary republic, say on the model of England, maybe on the model of France.
Not a monarchy.
They didn't, after all, they fought to get rid of one dictator.
And he's a controversial dictator to evaluate because he's our dictator.
We put him there.
He took over for his father, who we put there, with little or no claim on the monarchy of that country, of the Persian country.
He took over.
When things got hot in the 50s, he fled.
And they did have for a short while with Mossadegh, they had a form of a parliamentary democracy.
Britain, I think, for reasons of wanting to keep control over the oil, because he was trying to make the country more independent of the, particularly of England.
But the United States got itself involved in it because although the greater interest here was England, it was the CIA that engineered putting the Shah back in power.
Now, Shah number two was a weak version of Shah number one.
I don't mean in terms of reluctance to kill people or tremendous thief, but weak version in that he was an indecisive man, whereas the prior dictator was extremely decisive.
Killed more people, but the Shah killed his group of people.
They both had the Savak, which was one of the most feared secret services, secret police, like the Stasi in East Germany or equivalents in any one of the communist or dictatorship type countries.
But theirs was well known for grabbing people, torturing them if they disagreed with the Shah.
But the Americans put him back, Americans put him back in power.
And I would imagine, and I've read the history of this, but it's a while ago.
But I think I remember it real well.
We put him back because of the Cold War.
We were afraid that surrounding the groups of people that were taking over for the Shah were communists.
And there were.
There were communists.
Part of the group.
What we didn't realize because our intelligence, I don't know if our intelligence has ever been good since George Washington, but I have a particular bias because the 51 intelligence experts of the 90s and maybe even 80s and 90s all accused me of being a Russian agent when I produced Hunter Biden's computer and hard drive, which had nothing Russian about it at all.
Except maybe some of the women he had put no clothes on in there were Russian.
In fact, I think there was a Russian, I think there was a Russian prostitute who got one of his architects, got one of his computers.
I'm pretty sure.
Well, it wouldn't be the most of his crimes or skullduggery or whatever.
But in any event, our intelligence services decided that if we stayed with Mossadegh, the communists might have too much influence.
We didn't own him enough.
I cannot tell you without going back and researching this even more, how valid that is now in the light of all of the irresponsible, self-interested, sometimes greedy decisions the CIA made.
In the event, they made that decision.
Now, it was very much at the urging of the British government because they wanted their hands back on the oil.
So they kicked out Mossadegh and they basically propped the Shah up.
This is like a guy sweating, urinating, crying, and they put him in charge and say, don't worry, we'll take care of you, pussyboy.
So pussyboy takes over with his wife and becomes a, I don't know if schizophrenic is the right word.
I use it incorrectly sometimes.
I think of like split, you know, but maybe this is a guy with a split personality.
One half of him now attempts to create a more modern type government.
Now, that doesn't include his giving up any of the reins of power.
You know, it'd be different if he were like, you know, the king who agreed to the Magna Carta or, you know, backed off.
And where he did try to change, he tried to make the country more modern.
He tried to bring women in a little bit more.
He tried to ameliorate some of the harshest of the Muslim views.
He never really got into the core Muslim views because he was afraid of them.
What do I mean by core?
The fact that you have to confront that the leader of the religion, the man they revere, the prophet who's going to bring them to God, was a mass murderer, and he had specific targets for his mass murder.
Number one on the list was the Jewish people.
Number two were the Christians.
And number three were any infidels who didn't agree with him.
And there was an alternative to be used in certain circumstances that developed as Muhammad turned from religious maniac to typical world-class gangster.
And the alternative was you could pay him money.
That's how he left the religion.
Bring people to Allah.
And if they resist, kill them.
And short of killing them, if they have something valuable to offer, like for example, the Jewish people who had the greatest or the best olive grove in the Middle East, see if you can make a deal with them.
Then eventually take it over.
Some of the Mafia people from Sicily must have been Muslim.
So he never really took that on.
In fact, if you watch the Shah carefully, he played a backdoor with them.
At times, he would exile the troublesome Ayatollahs, Khomeini being the main one, or others.
And at times, he would go make peace with them and make concessions to them.
But he never saw them as his main problem or the country's main problem.
I don't know exactly what he saw as the country's main problem, but probably those who more directly opposed him because their opposition to him was more intelligent, more subdued, more lying in wait.
In any event, all these groups, they usually designate six, of which the Ayatollah was one of the main religious groups.
There were two.
The MEK was probably the main political group.
And then there were two or three other groups of almost equal stature, not quite a bit as MEK.
MEK has been accused by revisionist historians who are doing everything they can to help Iran of having been communist back at that time.
That is not factually accurate.
They were not communist at that time.
They were non-aligned in that sense.
But their values had always been a free government, a democratic government, and a free economy.
Did they have some communists in their midst?
I can't tell you that.
And was there a communist group involved with the entire revolution?
Yeah, in fact, most of the country was involved.
And they were going to share.
Well, they succeeded.
They succeeded in getting rid of the Ayatollah.
He tuck tail and ran with his billions that he stole and that his regime stole from the American people.
I must acknowledge to you that I represented at that time when I was a partner in law practice, one of his primary ministers who was in danger of losing his property in the United States.
And I would say at the time that I did, I knew about one-third to, oh gosh, even less than one-third of what I know now.
But The man that I'm talking about was an extraordinarily well-educated, really extraordinarily, on all other levels, a very fine person.
But I'm sure he was involved, if he was involved with the Shah, in the murders and the killings and the degradation of people.
And the few times I would get a chance to talk about that, which was independent of my legal representation, which is a pure question of law as to whose money it was, he'd admit a certain embarrassment about the shop, but it was more or less like people, he's the best we can do.
His father was actually worse, he would say, as a dictator, but better as a leader.
I think I understood it.
I'm not sure I do.
I spent time on this because there's a extraordinarily silly group that wants to bring the kid back, the Shah kid, where the gene pool has deteriorated even more.
And if Iran's going to go from dictatorship to monarchy, dictatorship, I don't get it.
Iran should go from religious insanity to a government that has for 20 years been working on how to create as Western a government or a government based on Western values as you possibly can get away with in that area of the world.
It'd be one hell of an experiment with a woman leading the transition and an extraordinarily brave woman who should get the Woman of the Year award.
That's Madam Maryam Rajavi.
Now, here's the reason they can't settle it between Israel and Iran.
Israel says no nuclear weapons for the reign of terror.
Logical position.
The reign of terror from day one, right in their very charter, is dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel.
Would you agree to a country, oh my goodness, just across the water from you, would you agree with a country having nuclear weapons that from the day it started with the Ayatollah until today probably doesn't miss a day when they don't chant death to Israel?
So the Israeli position is almost written in Old Testament stone.
And it says, no nuclear for Iran of any kind or in any way that will allow them to cheat and lie because they cheat and lie.
That's the position of Israel.
That's my position.
That's the only really intelligent position.
Unfortunately, our foreign policy is made by Marxist, people who are somehow, some way sympathetic to the Islamic extremist cause, and by featherheads.
To even start down this road 30 or 40 years ago of a two-state solution was a waste of time.
I was not involved in foreign policy.
I was a mayor of New York, an associate attorney general, a little bit then, but this came really after that.
I became as an associate attorney general and then as a U.S. attorney, really a much stronger and much more knowledgeable defender of the state of Israel because I learned a lot more about it.
I handled the prosecution of two Nazi war criminals.
I became friendly at an early age with Bibi Nanyahud and Nehud Olmer, now enemies, but both friends of mine then, very good friends.
And I became very, very knowledgeable about the state of Israel.
And in many ways, even though right now I'm on my way to Rome, I might consider Israel my second country.
I think they like me better.
So, and I've been with them since then every time I can.
If there's anything I can do for them, I've even offered to go fight for them.
Even now, I said, Bibi, if you need some people, you know, that are a little overage and you need anybody to help.
I don't think there are any braver people in the world than the Israeli people.
Us equal.
At our high end.
And boy, do we have a high end.
Wow.
And they are a worthy, they are a worthy ally.
When you've got an ally that can fight as good as you can, whoa.
Wouldn't mind being in battle anywhere with Israel at my side.
So from the very beginning, I didn't understand the two-state solution.
It seemed just as a matter of logic that it couldn't work.
And it only would work if there was a major realignment within Palestine, which maybe 30 or 40 years ago was possible.
Giuliani's position, and no one unfortunately made me Secretary of State, because I've been a damn good one.
Giuliani's position was Palestine slow down.
Arab countries slow down.
You'll agree with me.
Let's put them on a 10, 12 year program to deprogram them.
You want them deprogrammed, and don't tell me different, because king of Jordan, you won't allow a single Palestinian in Palestine, even though your wife's Palestinian, what does she have to say about that?
And Cece, my friend, you're not going to allow them there because they're part of the Muslim Brotherhood who threw out your predecessor and would throw you out in two seconds.
And Iran, you don't really like them.
You just use them.
And you got a lot of them killed, babes.
And nobody else in the Arab world really likes them.
It's a way of getting it, Israel.
Because when the issue becomes, well, when anybody takes some of them, the answer is, no, send them to America.
Yeah, send them to the country where when they finish their chant every day, death to Israel, they say death to America.
We should take them.
They've been brainwashed since they're two years old to kill us, and we should take them.
When you look at a poll, they're 90% in favor of slaughtering the Jews.
We should take them.
They're 85% convinced that we're the big state.
We should take them.
And we should allow Israel to live next to them.
Isn't the question they have to make the change?
They were the defeated party in the war anyway.
But somehow they won the war of phony capture of Western public opinion, which goes to the biggest money or the best Marxist conniver.
And they somehow flipped from the oppressor terrorist to the oppressed little victim against the country that oppresses them.
Although that country, when it makes war on them, does it occasionally and it does it under the rules of war.
There's no incident of the Israelis going in and conducting an October 7.
And when you look at the number of civilians that have been killed in this encounter, despite all of the lying, the reality is it's been rather small.
So Witkoff goes there, comes back, he says he thinks he's going to get an agreement.
Unfortunately, Steve doesn't know the history.
When Steve came back and said he was going to get an agreement, I knew we didn't have an agreement.
Because there's nothing there where Hamas says we're going to recognize the government of Israel.
And you got to go a lot further than recognizing the government of Israel.
You got to be willing to go on a 10 to 15 year program to prove it to us.
You got to prove to us that you're going to cut out the terrorism.
Now, they're not anywhere near that.
The sticking point in Israel is not just the recognition of the state of Israel by the new state and the expelling of all the people who disagree with that.
But it's got to be a test period of some substantial amount of time to make sure they're telling the truth, because they have not told the truth up until now.
That's been my position when they first said it.
It's my position today.
It's just harder today.
The government should, the Hamas should be wiped out as much as possible.
We should be left with the brainwashed Palestinians who were not Hamas, but were trained to kill us, and they should be deprogrammed.
And when the country has a substantial history of operating without any terrorist incidents for five or ten years, cooperation with the other Arab countries in the state of Israel, dispersion into other Arab countries where they come from anyway, most of them are Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian.
There is no such thing as a Palestinian group.
It's made up.
Oh, don't believe me.
Listen to Arafat.
We'll tell you that.
So I think in the interest of peace, we shouldn't just extend war because it'll just get worse as we move along.
This is our opportunity.
Let's face the issue.
The issue is Palestine has to disappear as a country and a concept because it's been so interlinked with genocide, with the wiping out of the Jewish people.
And if it wants to use another name, fine or whatever.
But it has to regather a population, both in the West Bank and particularly in Gaza, that are people who are peace-loving people, who can live with the Jews as friends, and can mutually help each other.
And there shouldn't be any compromise about that.
It's the only way it can happen.
I mean, and the Jewish compromise is they're not wiping them out, which they could do.
Now we look at a look at Ukraine.
We can do it very easily, very quickly.
Ukraine's the same problem.
Russia believes that Ukraine is part of Russia.
Ukraine believes it's a separate country.
The history of that is fascinating.
And it has a great deal to do with the history of Eastern Christianity.
And I'm going to do that.
I have done it as a podcast in the past and we'll find it.
But I am going to devote some real time to, I even think of teaching a course on that.
But maybe we can teach a course online.
Fascinating how they both emerged.
But let's shorten it to The development of the Soviet Union.
One step earlier, because it does make a difference.
Try to bear with me for this part.
You have the Russian Empire and you have the Soviet Union.
Neither was ever complete.
Peter the Great, Catherine the Great never got all the countries they wanted.
The Soviet Union never got all the countries it wanted.
But the Soviet Union went beyond the Russian Empire, largely because of the contribution of the guys that I call the Roosevelt-Schruman communists, who gave it to them.
Like Russia never claimed in its thousand-year history or 1500-year history, whatever history you want to give it, they never claimed Poland, but they took it.
They took Czechoslovakia.
They had Tito create Yugoslavia, and they took it.
They took Hungary.
Hungary was never Russian.
Peter the Great never aspired to take Hungary.
He probably aspired deep down in his soul to defeat Poland, although he may have been the one that didn't want to defeat Poland as much as some of the others.
And the Polish dispute, whereas the Ukrainian-Russian dispute is where did Christianity begin?
Eastern Christianity, because they were all one then.
Did it begin in Kiev-Rus, which is Kiev, but notice the little Rus after it?
So the Ukrainians say, oh, it started in Ukraine, our country.
The Russians will say, no, no, it started in Kiev-Rus, part of Russia, and then quickly really developed in Moscow.
And some of them may even think it started in Moscow.
And that's where the real Christianity grew.
Now, this is all within the, at that time, the eastern part of the Roman Catholic Church.
Shortly thereafter, there was a schism between the two churches.
Most of the eastern part of the Catholic Church goes off on its own.
Certain little segments remain behind loyal to the Pope.
So we have a large number really of Roman Catholic, Eastern Rite Ukrainians.
We have a small number of Russian Roman Rite Catholics, Roman Catholics, not as many as Ukrainian.
Then we have the Orthodox Church, the pure Orthodox Church, which is kind of divided really between the Patriarch in what was originally Constantinople, now Istanbul, Greece, and the Patriarch in Moscow.
When it all began, there was no one pope in the Eastern Church.
Western Church had the pope.
He ran everybody.
Eastern Church had patriarchs, and it's the conclave of bishops that ran things.
But the Greek Orthodox patriarch took on the role of the leading cleric.
Except when the Russian patriarch wanted to be.
So there you got a big split.
The Ukrainians set up their own Orthodox church, whether of their own accord or because of constant Russian defilements of Ukraine.
It aligned itself with the Russians.
If we go back to before the Soviets, what would Ukrainians consider themselves?
Well, it's a good question.
Some large percentage would consider themselves absolute Russians.
Some large percentage of them would consider themselves Ukrainians with a great affinity for Russia.
And some large percentage of them would consider themselves Ukrainians with a great hatred of Russia.
It depended on what happened to their families, it was part of the Tsar's empire, but it wasn't a happy part.
When the communists took over and they created the Soviet socialist republics, Ukraine became a republic and a critical republic, of course, right next to Moscow, and was considered to be part of Russia.
Whereas countries that they took over, like Poland and Czechoslovakia and Hungary, were never considered part of the Russian Empire.
They're part of the Soviet expansion.
So when Putin writes about how that's always been part of Russia, that's the context in which he's writing about it.
And he has historical facts on his side, and he has historical facts against him, but it isn't pure.
And for the longest time since we required the Soviet Union to give up Ukraine, which was so close to Russia that they had their main submarine base there, possibly their main nuclear facilities there, many, many Russians felt that they were strong-armed into giving up part of their country.
Many Ukrainians thought they were strong-armed and put into part of Russia.
And many Ukrainians thought, thank God, we're free of them.
When they would take elections and they would vote for the president who was pro-Russian, the president who was pro-Western, it'd be almost an equal split.
And that all changed really with the first in a phony election in the early part of the new century when the Russian candidate was overthrown and the West Indian candidate had been poisoned, people believe by Putin, but took over.
His administration was weakened by the fact that he was a very, very sick man at the time, having almost been killed by Putin.
And then eventually the Russians took over solidly.
But with that, there was great pressure on Viktor Yanukovych, who was the head of that government.
There was great pressure on him to agree to join NATO, which he kind of did, set up a timetable.
And then in 2014, looking at weak Obama sitting there, looking at weak Obama sitting there, they said time to hit.
And they did.
And they took over southern Ukraine.
And they took over the one that they had extraordinary affection for or necessity for, Odessa, which was a major submarine base, very Russian, and had in a controversial move been given up by Khrushchev.
So now the long and short of it is, here's where we are today.
Russia is holding on to that portion of the Ukraine that leads from Russia to Crimea in what people might consider a road, a direct access.
It's hard to describe exactly what it is.
I'm going to see if I can get you a nice little picture of it.
But in any event, they now have it.
They control it.
But you should understand that in controlling it, in controlling it, in the case of they control four oblasts.
An oblast is a province.
Three of them they control mostly.
One they control partially.
All of that pink that you see.
See the pink?
That's what they have captured.
That constitutes one-third of Ukraine.
No, no, constitutes 20% of Ukraine, one-third of the natural minerals that we all need.
And that probably have something to do with this war, by the way.
Those yellow areas are areas they would like to take.
They do not have them.
The map is also a little bit deficient because in three of those four provinces, it's not all pink.
About 20% of those provinces toward the northern or western end are still controlled by the Ukrainians.
Putin wants to keep everything he's taken.
Putin puts on the table, and I want the areas that they're hiding from me.
In other words, those little extra areas, which would get him from 20% to about 24% of Ukraine.
I can't tell you if those are valuable lands, you know, if these are the super valuable lands or not.
I happen to think not.
And he wants to end the war with complete victory.
Well, complete victory would be he have all of Ukraine.
And Ukraine, with the help of the United States and Europe, stop that immediately.
So I would say right now, there's no way in hell that Putin's going to give up any of that land, no matter what we do or how we do it.
Wait.
On the other side, the Ukrainians, and I have a lot of problems with Zelensky, as you know, but quite rightly, the Ukrainians have said they had no right to come into our country in the first place.
They had an agreement with the United States and Russia that were they to be invaded, the United States and Russia would help them.
Well, yeah, Russia really helped them a lot.
They took it.
And America kind of helped, kind of didn't help, gave them enough to win a little and lose a little.
We can even see that now with Trump having to relax some of the weapons decisions that made it impossible for Russia to keep, for Ukraine to keep Russia out of Ukraine.
So now it appears as if, like it does in Israel, that in Israel, it looks like Hamas is not going to say, we're going to leave and we're going to give up our claim that Israel should be destroyed and that that land should be Arab.
It looks on the Russian side, like the Russians are going to say, we're going to keep that, oh, but it gets worse.
They also don't want Ukraine to join NATO, which means that if they cross over the border, there's a war with the whole world.
And they don't want them even to defend themselves in a more ad hoc arrangement where you'd have European troops and American troops and that they would help them.
In other words, they want them to be undefended.
That's Putin's position.
Zelensky has every right to say, you want unconditional victory.
You want to go take land that doesn't belong to you.
You want to keep it.
And you want to create a situation in which it is quite obvious that when another pussy like Biden comes along, they're going to take the rest of us.
And what you're doing is you're just Wearing us down, so that we got nothing left by that.
So he has to say no.
So, how do we solve it?
Well, it's simple but complicated.
And only a Trump or a Reagan can do it.
And here's where you put isolationist, interventionist aside.
It's not a decision for an isolationist.
They just run away.
It's not a decision for an interventionist.
They just start the next world war.
Decision for an extraordinarily skilled president and diplomat like Reagan and Trump.
Here's what you do real quick, and then we'll explain it better to you tomorrow.
One, in Russia, you tell Putin, after you impose the most airtight secondary sanctions on him known to man, so that if anything, the most he gets out is about 20% of his oil and starve him because he's pretty close to starving right now and China ain't giving him any more money.
China does not back a loser.
That's why they've left Iran.
That's why they've left Russia.
And they're beginning territorial disputes with Russia.
We want our land back.
We want our land back.
So we tell them, we put these in effect.
You start selling oil to Uzbekistan.
Uzbekistan can't sell oil to anybody in the world.
How many can go along with you, Vladimir?
Until you're crushed.
Second, you arm Ukraine to the point where they can answer Russia tit-for-tat.
We say don't attack Moscow.
Well, then don't attack Kiev.
We're not your punching bag, atheist pig.
You killed enough of our people.
We don't want to kill your people.
We killed your soldiers, killed a lot of them, injured about a million of them.
But now you hit Kiev, we hit Moscow.
You hit Kharkhev, we hit Leningrad.
Pretty city, used to be.
And we hit it with weapons that are five times more complicated than you could possibly imagine.
And we'll be protected by Patriot missiles, and we're going to shoot down your shit as it comes at us.
And we're ahead of you in drones anyway.
Plus, we've infiltrated your country.
You haven't infiltrated ours.
That's the only way we're going to do this.
The only way we're going to do this if we don't want to get into a war.
If we do it right, without any bullshit, without any backdoor deals, we get Sergeyev in and we say, Sergey, this is for real, pal.
I'd love to have the conversation with Sergey.
I'd convince him.
It's over, Sergey.
The bullshit's over.
Game's over.
Get the hell out of there.
And what do we want back?
I'd start off with everything and I'd settle for half for Ukraine.
Get them all out.
Give us half.
Oh, but wait a second.
If you want to keep that half, then they are allowed to have reinforcements there to protect themselves.
And they even have a road to NATO.
If you want to get out, we won't put forces in there.
Well, we'll put forces in there for a while.
We'll leave the NATO thing open.
Okay, now simple solution on the Israeli side.
No Hamas member can be in Gaza, the West Bank, or anything denominated as the Palestinian Authority.
They have to be removed.
If nobody wants to take them, they should be put into prison for life because they have committed capital crimes of the worst kind.
And we don't need the influence of Hamas if we're going to try to turn the Palestinian people.
Second, Palestine has to be reconstituted with the recognition that all their children at two years old were brainwashed to kill Jews and kill Americans.
And therefore, it has to be governed by an international force in which Israel plays a role and a meaningful role with the United States, in which they try to bring in new citizens who try to develop both the West Bank and Palestine.
And if they don't like it, the war continues.
And how about you want to get it over with quick?
Hit the Ayatollah big time.
Get rid of them.
And then nobody will be negotiating for Palestine.
And Mr. President, you'll get what you want.
You'll get your Abraham Accords.
I do not believe that there is any way, Mr. President, that you will be able to achieve your objective of peace so long as there's the reign of terror in Iran.
Conversely, I think you get rid of that reign of terror and we're on our way to what you promised.
Well, I hope this was sufficiently clear.
It's not a clear situation.
We'll be learning a lot more in Rome about the Iranian situation.
We'll be trying to get some of that to you through TED and elsewhere.
So keep watching.
America's Mayor Live on X. God bless the people of Israel.
God bless the people of Ukraine.
God bless the people of Iran and let them be free.
Now we're going to Italy.
God bless the people of Italy and all of Europe.
I like what's going on in Scotland.
God bless us.
God bless our president.
And God bless America.
It's our purpose to bring to bear the principle of common sense and rational discussion to the issues of our day.
America was created at a time of great turmoil, tremendous disagreements, anger, hatred.
It was a book written in 1776 that guided much of the discipline of thinking that brought to us the discovery of our freedoms, of our God-given freedoms.
It was Thomas Paine's Common Sense, written in 1776, one of the first American bestsellers, in which Thomas Paine explained, by rational principles, the reason why these small colonies felt the necessity to separate from the Kingdom of Great Britain and the King of England.
He explained their inherent desire for liberty, for freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the ability to select the people who govern them.
And he explained it in ways that were understandable to all the people, not just the elite.
Because the desire for freedom is universal.
The desire for freedom adheres in the human mind and it is part of the human soul.
This is exactly the time we should consult our history.
Look at what we've done in the past and see if we can't use it to help us now.
We understand that our founders created the greatest country in the history of the world.
The greatest democracy, the freest country, a country that has taken more people out of poverty than any country ever.
All of us are so fortunate to be Americans.
But a great deal of the reason for America's constant ability to self-improve is because we're able to reason.
We're able to talk.
▲
Export Selection