Ezra Levante examines Zelensky’s May 16 Washington Post interview, where he admits Ukraine lacks ammunition for a counteroffensive despite NATO promises, denies striking Russia but acknowledges discussions on Rostov, and calls leaks "treason." Zelensky rejects ceasefire talks, blaming Putin’s war on broader Russian society, while Western leaders—including the U.S.—block negotiations unless Russia fully withdraws, defying the UN Charter’s 141-country demand. Levante contrasts Ukraine’s martial law elections with WWII-era democracies and warns: Western insistence on military victory risks freezing the conflict without sovereignty guarantees, mirroring Cold War stalemates where geopolitics trumped peace. [Automatically generated summary]
Today, I'm going to have a great interview for you, but I'm also going to take you through someone else's interview.
The Washington Post interviewed Vladimir Zelensky a very long interview.
Some predictable answers, but some shocking answers to some surprise questions.
I'm going to take you through the transcript.
There's no video of it that I know of, so I'm going to read you the transcript and give you my thoughts interspersed.
I think you'll, if you're interested in the Ukraine war, I think you might find it an interesting transcript.
That's ahead, but first let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this show.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
And besides the video content, you'll get the satisfaction of knowing that you're helping keep Rebel News afloat.
As you know, we get no money from the government.
We like it that way.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, a Washington Post interview with Ukraine's president goes off the rails when they ask a tough question and he accuses them of treason.
It's May 16th, and this is the Ezra Levance Show.
Shame on you, you censorious f**k!
Propaganda War00:07:50
I find it very hard to follow the war in Ukraine because both sides are such prolific publishers of propaganda.
My social media feeds are full of video from the front lines, I think, often taken from drones.
This really is a drone war, drones used for reconnaissance, drones used to attack.
Here's a video of a drone going right over the top of an armored vehicle and dropping a small bomb, a grenade, right into an open hatch.
Is that a real video?
Is it a Ukrainian video of a Russian tank?
I think it is.
Or is that a Russian video of a Ukrainian tank?
The other way around.
It's hard to tell.
I've seen sometimes the same video ascribed to each country.
And no kidding, today's video games are so sophisticated in their graphics.
I've seen some pretty realistic footage of a video game uploaded as if it were a video taken in the actual war.
And a lot of people are convinced.
And really, how would most people know?
Obviously, propaganda is an essential element in war, not just in authoritarian countries like Russia and Ukraine, but in more liberal democracies like ours, Canada, the U.S., Western Europe.
And I mentioned that because that's where most of Ukraine's weapons and ammunition and money is coming from.
And that's where Ukraine's soldiers are training in those new weapons.
And that's where the huge infusions, I think close to $200 billion now, with about $10 billion of that coming from Canada.
The information warfare is necessary to keep public support for the continued delivery of money and ammunition.
That's the thing.
NATO ammunition stocks have been deeply depleted.
Russia is running out of tanks and shells, of course, but so is Ukraine.
And they're being supplied by NATO.
It really is a kind of World War III.
I saw this explosion on social media.
This is from the Ukrainian city of Khmelnitsky.
It's such a huge explosion.
It's almost as big as a small nuclear detonation.
It reminded me of the enormous explosion in Beirut a few years ago, but this was no industrial accident.
This was a Russian military attack on a Ukrainian NATO weapons dump.
Take a look.
But like
I say, was that really Khmelnytsky and.
And was it really this week?
And was it really a Russian attack on a Ukrainian position?
And really, how would I know?
Could be the exact opposite for all I know.
I wouldn't know the difference.
And so my point about war propaganda and the fog of war and how there's propaganda on all sides, my unhappy conclusion is that the only time I really feel like I can trust something to be authentic is if one of the sides in the war reports bad news about themselves.
As in, I wouldn't believe a Russian report saying that that was a quarter billion dollars worth of NATO missiles and other ammunition that was just blown up by Russian drones.
I wouldn't believe it if the Russians said it.
But I'd believe it if the Ukrainians said so and the Ukrainians more or less said so.
Same thing when the Russians released footage of a drone attack on the Kremlin itself in Moscow.
I suppose you could say something like this is a false flag attack as in theoretically Russia attacked itself to blame Ukraine.
You could say that.
Certainly Vladimir Zelensky's response to it was it wasn't him, but there have been a number of attacks on Russia, not just in Crimea, like the massive attack against the key strategic Russian bridge, but also attacks on oil depots, air bases, and cities in Russia proper, not just those parts of Ukraine they annexed a few years ago.
Then there's the attack on Russia's natural gas pipeline, an underwater pipeline to Europe, the North Stream II, some months ago.
My point is so many conflicting stories.
The only ones I feel confident believing are the ones where one side or the other admits something embarrassing, admits a setback.
I don't believe it when they trumpet a victory.
I don't know.
Maybe you have a better way of figuring out the truth than that.
Which is why I read the Washington Post interview with Vladimir Zelensky this week with great interest.
The Washington Post, as a newspaper, is the ultimate deep state asset.
It is the establishment newspaper in the city of the White House and the Pentagon.
It is literally owned by Jeffrey Bezos, who just happens to have a massive data contract for the CIA.
So when the Bezos Washington Post goes to Ukraine to interview Vladimir Zelensky, that's as official as it gets.
There really weren't many surprise questions in the interview, but there were a few, not many.
But Zelensky's answers were very revealing, not for what he boasts about, but for what he admits.
Here's the story as it appears in the Washington Post.
I don't believe there's video or audio, so I will read it to you.
I'm sorry to read so many words.
They call it Zelensky interview transcript, Ukraine must win.
That's his job to say that, but what is a win?
How do you define a victory?
I think that's a pretty important question that actually has not been answered by anyone important, at least in the West.
Here's an interesting note.
They say this transcript has been updated to restore passages that were initially published on May 13th, but then removed from a subsequent version.
The passages were removed for several hours on May 14th to allow the Washington Post to conduct additional reporting about them.
The Post should have included a note indicating that parts of the transcript were temporarily removed.
This updated version is identical to the one published on May 13.
It includes a full transcript of the May 1 interview, translated and lightly edited for clarity.
So they originally deleted key passages of that interview and didn't explain it or mention it, which was extremely curious.
And the kind of thing maybe a CIA-owned newspaper might do.
Anyway, I'm going to read some of the QA, not all of it.
It is many times longer than what I'm going to read for you.
But some of it's repetitive and some is a little bit obscure.
I'm going to read what I think are interesting parts.
Question.
Ukraine has been planning a counteroffensive for many months.
Can you tell us about any specifics?
What do you need to succeed?
Answer.
Thank you very much for your question.
First of all, we don't plan a counteroffensive for months.
This is a priority issue for us, so we had to be prepared in advance with our plans.
Ukraine's Counteroffensive Plans00:14:47
And this is the truth.
Our partners understand this as well.
There are issues in a number of areas.
The first issue, of course, is ammunition.
I say this as a priority not because I want to complain, but because it's a resource without which a counteroffensive is impossible.
But I want to clearly say that without this resource, the defense of the state is impossible.
It's not just an issue with regards to the counteroffensive.
It's very interesting, and I think that was just a day or so before that huge explosion in Ichmelmitsky.
I'm not sure the exact dates, but I think a lot of those weapons were blown up there.
You can see he's downplaying expectations for months.
We've heard about this counteroffensive.
Here, take a look at the next part.
This is Zelensky talking about Russia.
They came to the tactics that they used at the beginning of the war in some small villages.
Now, they don't care whether it's a small village or a big one.
That tactic is the complete destruction of everything, of all infrastructure, buildings, civilians, etc.
What we see in Bakhmut, if you look at it from the sky, if you have some kind of satellite capabilities to look at these images, you will see that absolutely everything is destroyed.
It's true.
They're talking about a city called Bakhmut.
I'd never heard of it before.
Both sides have lost thousands of men on this town, and they're fighting building to building.
The entire town is demolished.
Again, I see some video footage of the town, whether it's from the Russians or the Ukrainians.
It almost doesn't matter.
It's misery everywhere.
And visually, it reminds me of the shocking scenes in that movie a few years back called Enemy at the Gates, which was about the Battle of Stalingrad, which I think cost a million lives.
Destroyed the town.
Anyhow, Zelensky comes back to what he really wants from the West.
New weapon systems he hasn't been given before, including long-range weapons, which raises a bit of an eyebrow.
Let me read some more.
By the way, we don't understand what the problem is here with long-range systems, long-distance missiles.
The issue with our partners is that I think they're afraid that we might use them on the territory of Russia.
But I would always tell our partners, listen, our task is to deoccupy our territory.
We don't have any disposable shells.
We don't have any targets like that.
We have a priority target for which we are spending the ammunition package we have.
We spend it on the deoccupation of purely Ukrainian territories.
But we would need to do that with long-range missiles and systems.
So now I don't quite understand.
I'll tell you frankly why we can't get long-range artillery, because the objective of long-range artillery is definitely not to use it on Russian territory.
Could be true.
He wants F-16 jets also.
Let me read.
And our partners as well, we would like to get their support to provide us with Western standard fighter jets, certainly the F-16.
I'm sure.
But again, he downplays what they can expect from Ukraine.
In terms of a counteroffensive, the Washington Post asks, do you have any specific expectations of what you need to accomplish?
And what does your military have to show to keep the support you have now and future support?
Okay, that's a good question.
Zelensky says, look, we're in an independent state, and even though we have partners, we are the ones making the decisions, no matter what.
That's a good answer.
About where we are going, in what direction we're moving, and of course our actions.
It's true.
It's true.
But it's being paid for by the West, including here in Canada.
I'll read more.
Look, nobody expects as much from this counteroffensive as we do.
I'll tell you frankly, I'm not sure that absolutely all of our partners believe that we're able to break the Russian Federation.
Again, I think he's true.
I mean, Ukraine, however bravely they fight, they're outmanned, outgunned, outnumbered.
But if winning is extremely difficult or even impossible, what's the alternative?
Well, diplomacy, of course, negotiation.
And here's the question from the Washington Post.
And you now maintain your position not to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin?
Zelensky says, look, we have dealt with different Putins.
It's a completely different set of traits in different periods.
Putin is not alone.
Putin is an entourage.
They made their respective decisions.
In 2019, their collective organism, the Kremlin, headed by Putin, said that, yes, we will probably find a diplomatic solution.
I very much wanted this in 2020 or 2021.
This whole collective mind made up something else in their heads, but did not enter into a dialogue with us and did not do everything we had agreed with them in 2019.
I think that's an interesting answer because the West has demonized Vladimir Putin personally.
But this answer by Zelensky hints that there's a larger philosophy shared by other Russian leaders too.
Sure, Putin is the boss, but he's suggesting, no, this isn't just one guy.
You know, knocking out the top man might not solve this.
By the way, moving NATO right to Russia's border, something not even done during the Cold War, that just might be inflaming things in the Kremlin too, arming neighboring states.
I mean, from the American point of view, when Russia put weapons, long-range weapons in Cuba, that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
America has a policy, the Monroe Doctrine, that no foreign power can set up shop in the Americas.
They just will be driven out.
But Russia, when it expresses the same concern, is called a warmonger.
Maybe they are warmongers, and maybe it's unreasonable of them.
But from an American point of view, we know the reaction when Russia tried to put weapons near America.
That, I think, is something that Zelensky understands.
Whether or not it's a legitimate concern from Putin, I'll leave to you to think.
But that is the concern of Putin.
I think Zelensky knows it.
Here's what Zelensky says.
We cannot say that Putin alone started a full-scale war in 2022.
And it would be, to be honest, just insulting to all those people who have died.
They have a large collective responsibility for this.
And that's why I'm just not ready to talk to them.
I'm not ready to talk to this collective, not because someone is stubborn, but because they have chosen the path of destruction of Ukraine, a full-scale path.
That's why we can't absolve anyone of responsibility.
I don't know if you have to absolve someone of responsibility to enter into some negotiations.
It's been a terrible war, devastating to both sides, huge loss of life on both sides, but obviously more loss of life in Ukraine, because that's where the cities and towns are blown up.
That's where the civilians are.
That's where the explosions happen.
You don't have to absolve, I don't think you have to absolve your enemy of a sin before you negotiate with them.
If that was the case, I don't think you would ever negotiate with an enemy.
But, you know, as we learn in Northern Ireland and as we learn in Israel, you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
Here's a question from the Post.
So it sounds like a counteroffensive is many months away?
Answer.
No.
Question.
You've said that no one has greater expectations for this counteroffensive than you.
What specifically needs to happen for you to consider it success?
Answer.
Any deoccupied territories, I believe, is a success.
All right.
Now, there's a reference to various documents that were leaked, including documents a few months ago showing six or seven to one ratio of military losses, Ukraine losing up to 100,000 troops compared to a fraction of Russian losses.
Those documents also show that there are U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine, which came as a surprise as well.
Here's how the Washington Post starts to talk about those facts.
On a different topic, can you tell us about your reaction to the leaked Pentagon documents on the Discord server?
Did Washington give you a heads up, or did you find out yourself through news reports the extent of the leaks?
Zelensky said, if we were talking about me personally, and I would like to talk about myself personally, I learned everything from the newspapers, from the internet.
I read it.
I read that some information was leaked.
So that's sort of interesting that the U.S. didn't give him a heads up.
But here's the surprise.
Here's the question, which I think surprised Zelensky.
And it's why the Washington Post claims to have deleted, then republished parts of this interview.
And that makes sense.
If they had some scoop, they probably wanted to write it up separately, besides just bringing it out as a by the way in this interview.
So here's the scoop that would have caught Zelensky by surprise.
So far, everything asked is pretty predictable.
But here's the news.
The Washington Post has obtained documents that we have not published details about yet.
We would like to ask you about some information there and also to give you the opportunity to respond to what is in there.
One of them says that on January 31st, you suggested occupying parts of Russia along the border for future leverage in the negotiations.
Is that true?
Zelensky, hardly, and he laughs.
Question, do you think Ukraine has a right to occupy parts of Russia?
It's a good question.
Zelensky, let's not get into fantasies.
Ukraine has every right to protect itself.
We are doing it.
Ukraine did not occupy anyone, but vice versa.
The war is about the occupation of Ukraine.
Ukraine must win.
What steps to take in order to win?
That's another question.
And don't be offended here.
I'm not ready to share.
I'll tell you honestly, well, when so many people have died and there have been mass graves and our people have been tortured, I'm sure that we have to use any tricks, any absolutely different methods of response.
Sounds like maybe he's saying yes without saying yes.
It's a bit of a confusing answer.
There have been attacks in Russia, including assassinations, including explosions.
Recent cafe was blown up.
Now there's some lengthy back and forth here, but I want to read it because this is what made Vladimir Zelensky, I think, lose his cool question from the Washington POST.
The documents also say that you spoke with Valery Zeluzhny, head of the Ukrainian armed forces, on February 28th about striking troops in Russia's Rostov region.
So that's in Russia.
We know that there have been several strikes on Russian territory.
Is that something you personally ordered?
Zelensky says, first of all, I can repeat it again we are fighting a war for our territory, fighting on on our territory and deoccupying our territory.
That's it all my conversations with Zaluzhny, Oleksander Sirsky and Oleksandr Tarnovsky.
I have a lot of generals with whom I work, with whom I talk, and I talk directly to them.
I know all their needs and these are my personal conversations and no one in our country has given orders for offenses or strikes on Russian territory.
It's a very legalistic answer.
That's not saying we didn't talk about it.
He says no one's given the order for it.
I think it's pretty clear that they've talked about it.
The Washington POST starts to talk about the documents again and Zelensky answers, this time in English.
Until now it's been in Ukrainian translated, but he says in English, will we speak about these documents?
Washington POST says, a couple more questions.
Zelensky in English, just a couple more documents.
Washington POST, the documents indicate that HUR, your intelligence directorate, has back-channel contact with the Evgeny Progozhin that you were aware of, including meeting with Evgeny Progozhin and HUR officers.
Is that true?
Well, that's a Russian military man and Zelensky says, this is a matter of military intelligence.
Do you want me to be convicted of state treason?
And so it's very interesting if someone is saying that you have documents or someone from our government is speaking about the activities of our intelligence.
I would also like to ask you a question, with which sources from Ukraine do you have contact?
Who is talking about the activities of our intelligence?
Because this is the most severe felony in our country.
Which Ukrainians are you talking to?
That's a little prickly and it's a little dangerous.
You know these are Washington POST journalists.
I don't think anyone would dare to touch them.
Jeffrey Bezos could hurt Ukraine in a lot of ways.
Washington POST is the favorite newspaper of Capitol Hill, but it is a fact that Vladimir Zelensky has shut down independent journalists in Ukraine, shut down rival political parties in Ukraine, arrested people, gone to war against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church for not being supportive enough of him.
If Vladimir Zelensky is upset with you and calls you a traitor, you'd better get out of Ukraine.
Washington Post says, I talked to officials in government, but these documents are not from Ukraine.
They are from, and then Zelensky interrupts, it doesn't matter where the documents are from.
The question is, with which Ukrainian official did you talk?
Because if they say something about our intelligence, that's treason.
If they say something about a specific offensive plan of one general or another, this is also treason.
That's why I asked you, which Ukrainians are you talking to?
Washington Post, about these specific documents?
You're the first person I'm talking to about them.
Zelensky, okay.
Washington Post, and I can read you what information exactly there is about Progozhin and the GUR.
On February 13th, Kirillo Budinov, chief of Ukraine's main directorate of intelligence, informed you about a Russian plan to destabilize Moldova with two former Wagner associates.
That's a mercenary group in Russia.
What comes next is interesting.
Zelensky says, what's your goal?
Why aren't you more supportive?
He's used to reporters, especially in the Washington Post, being very obedient.
Take a listen.
You are releasing some sort of information that does not help our state to attack and does not help us to defend our state.
So I don't quite understand what you are talking about.
I don't quite understand your goal.
It's your goal to help Russia.
I mean, that means we have different goals.
I'm not sitting at the same table with them.
Different Goals Demotivate00:04:37
I don't quite understand what we're talking about.
Each of these inquiries simply demotivates Ukraine, demotivates certain partners to help Ukraine.
Well, one way or another, I just don't understand your goal.
To which the Washington Post says, our goal is not to help Russia.
Zelensky says, well, it looks different.
The center of the conversation is this news, don't you think?
And Zelensky's furious reaction to it.
Aren't you on our side?
How dare you?
Who are you talking to?
Tell me their name.
This is treason.
Washington Post says, no one gave us this information personally.
These were in the leaked documents, which do indicate, as I said earlier, that the United States is listening in on you.
Zelensky said, and if you have classified documents, it means someone gave them to you.
If you have access to documents, someone gave them to you.
Today in the world of modern technology, when you have access, it's not necessarily someone gave it to you.
You have access.
You are now quoting some documents as originals without understanding the responsibility for this.
You were just talking about some information.
For me, this is incomprehensible information.
But in this, in our dialogue, I want to understand why you are doing this.
I told you at the beginning of our conversation that I believe that the TV show that was launched, launched in the information field, helps.
I don't know who, but it helps Russia.
It definitely doesn't help Ukraine.
You are engaged in continuing this story.
And so I ask you if it's your choice and if you think the Russian Federation needs to be helped in a variety of spheres.
That they were expecting Ukrainian counteroffensive in whichever direction so they don't know when we are coming, so they know our powerful forces and what we are planning, what our intelligence is doing.
Well, if that's the case, then he's furious.
He can't let it go.
How dare you ask me this?
Where did you get this information?
Surely he knew he would be asked about leaked documents, if not these new ones.
He's not used to a free press.
He's arrested the independent journalists, hasn't he?
Washington Post says, we came to talk to you about this.
It is clearly sensitive for you and your country.
Zelensky says in English, it is not sensitive.
If I answer you that it's sensitive, it means that these are real documents.
Please stop playing games with me.
I'm the president of a war country, a country in war.
I said about my reaction to these documents, I said that it's not good for our people.
You know, I'm not playing counter-strike.
We are preparing a counteroffensive.
You know, these are different things.
That's why I said all the details for me, you will hear.
And of course, we are thankful for your work, your help when you support Ukraine in this war.
You did a big job.
Now I'm saying about these documents, I don't recognize it as documents.
I didn't see that.
This is the first thing.
I don't know how you got it.
My question was to you, why are you continue doing that?
Okay, you are free.
I mean, you will do what you want, but I don't want to speak about it with details because I don't know about what I'm speaking.
It's something with some information.
And I said that I didn't have any contact with the White House about these documents or not documents, about these papers or not papers, about this platform or a fake platform.
I didn't have before now, and I don't know.
Maybe in the future, I just say the same message very publicly and very open.
I said it to you with some journalists and to a lot of leaders.
When they asked me about this, I said, it's not good for us.
What can I say?
It's not good.
I don't know if it was faker, what a percent.
I don't know what it is.
And I don't know who needs it and what is the game.
I don't know for what.
That's it.
For me, it's not serious.
It sounds like somebody said something, heard something.
I think he's stunned there.
I think he's incomprehensible.
I think he's showing too much emotion.
I'm sure he's under extreme stress.
I think he's embarrassed by these documents.
How could he not be?
I think he's startled that the secrets he was keeping are no longer secrets.
Oh, and then there's a chance that we'll just start World War III.
Let me read a little more.
Washington Post, is it fair for the United States to impose restrictions on strikes inside Russian territory when Russia strikes civilian infrastructure in Ukraine?
Zelensky says, we do not have such capabilities.
We don't have the capabilities to strike in the Russian Federation.
We do not have long-range weapons to this day.
Washington Post, but there are regular drone strikes within Russia.
Zelensky in English.
What Russia?
On Crimea?
Zelensky On Capabilities00:03:36
Crimea is a territory of Ukraine.
We use sea drones, as you know.
We said about it openly, or with a ship, Moskva.
That's the mighty Russian ship that the Ukrainians sank early in the war.
Here's a tough question.
Mr. President, Ukraine has not published its military casualties count over the course of the war.
What do you gain from hiding this number?
Should the world not know the cost of this war to Ukraine by knowing the numbers?
That's a tough one.
Do you not think it would help the cause of scaling up the ammunition you're saving, you're saying you need, if people understood the extent to which Ukrainians are dying on the battlefield?
Zelensky said, listen, our intelligence agencies are working.
Ukrainian with the United States, with Britain, with other partners.
Everyone is working.
Everyone understands each other's respective steps, and everyone understands approximately how many people we have lost.
That's why everyone knows everything that is available, what is needed to get the required weapons.
Everyone knows it.
I don't think that's true.
I think it was not known until these leaks, and it's been a horrendous death toll for Ukraine.
Washington Post said, the fighting is obviously continuing in Bakhmut.
Has it been worth the number of soldiers who died and got wounded there to continue fighting?
Zelensky said, it's an unequivocal decision in the entire military and the political leadership.
Everybody understands that Bakhmut is the only thing that the Russian president and Progozhin can sell to their dismantled army and to their society.
They need Bakhmut only to say, here, the operation is ours.
You see, we're doing everything right.
Let's continue.
You see that this is a great victory.
Well, it sounds like Zelensky has the identical point of view.
It sounds like what happened in that mighty battle over Stalingrad.
It no longer became about the mission, but really stubbornness and the feud and the vendetta, Stalin versus Hitler, who would cry uncle first from that movie.
Enemy of the Gates, here's a quick clip of that.
It's a really good fiction,
but it really feels like what's going on in Bakhmut.
Last question, the scariest in some ways.
Will there be parliamentary elections in the fall?
Xi's Role in Ending the War00:04:39
Zelensky.
If we have martial law, we cannot have elections.
The Constitution prohibits any elections during martial law.
If there is no martial law, then there will be.
Well, the law says that according to the Constitution of Ukraine, after martial law ends, I think in 90 days elections are held.
It's something like that.
I don't remember, actually.
So as long as there's a war, there won't be any elections.
You know, there were elections in Canada and the United States and the UK during World War II.
It's sort of odd that the longer the war goes on, the longer Vladimir Zelensky does not have to go to an election.
Not that they would be effective in that he has banned many of his political and media rivals.
I want to show you maybe the scariest thing, not Zelensky, but a U.S. administration spokesman asked about Chinese and Hungarian and other calls for a ceasefire.
And the American answer was no.
Take a look.
Today, I think, as you all know, President Xi is visiting Russia to meet with President Putin.
Now, you also probably know that China's already issued a 12-point plan for the conflict in Ukraine, which includes an essential point, and that's respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries.
We encourage President Xi to advocate for this exact essential key point, which must include the withdrawal of Russian forces from sovereign Ukrainian territory consistent with the UN Charter.
The entire world would like to see this war end, especially the Ukrainians themselves, who have put forward their own plan for a just peace, which draws again on these same UN principles.
And let's remember, this war could actually end right now if Russia would withdraw its troops from the country.
We hope that President Xi will press President Putin to cease bombing Ukrainian cities, hospitals, and schools to halt the war crimes and atrocities and to withdraw all his troops.
But we are concerned that instead, China will reiterate calls for a ceasefire that leaves Russian forces inside Ukraine's sovereign territory.
Any ceasefire that does not address the removal of Russian forces from Ukraine would effectively ratify Russia's illegal conquests, enabling Russia to entrench its positions and then to restart the war at a more advantageous time for them.
The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, aided by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its terms without any viable pathway to restore Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Any such attempt, any such attempt would violate the UN Charter and defy the will of the 141 countries that demanded just weeks ago at the UN General Assembly that Russia immediately, completely, and unconditionally withdraw from Ukraine.
Efforts to end this conflict must take Ukraine's position into account.
And so we encourage President Xi to play a constructive role by speaking with President Zelensky, which he has not done since Russia launched this invasion.
Because China, quite frankly, we believe, should hear directly from the Ukrainians and not just from the Russians.
And we encourage President Xi to press President Putin directly on the need to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The world and China's neighbors will certainly be watching closely.
I think this is a terrible war.
I think it's turning Ukraine into a horrific loss of life, both for the military and civilians, destroying infrastructure.
Of course, Russians are dying, but the Ukrainians are paying the highest price.
And I think that the West has bet and bet again and upped the ante that it does not want even to talk about a ceasefire.
You saw the administration.
Zelensky himself is talking about winning the war.
And it's clear that he means to attack Russia.
He says no such order is given, but he didn't deny that they're talking about it.
And he actually more or less said that attacks on Crimea don't count because that is still Ukrainian territory, he says.
I think this is a very interesting story, and it's one of the few things I believe in the war.
Because when Zelensky says what he says to the deep state newspaper of record, when he says things that show that he's stressed and lowering expectations of a counteroffensive and that he can't control leaks, I think that information is something that's, well, in this case, it's true.
Ask Danielle Smith About Protesters00:14:49
And it's sad.
stay with us for more well i like talking to lauren gunter of the edmonton sun He's been around a while.
You know, Lauren, I don't know if you know this.
He actually started off as a Liberal Party staffer.
I think that's one reason why he's more moderate.
He's not quite as excitable, perhaps, as I am, because he's a little more into the center, but he's also, I think he makes an effort to see things from both sides.
But Lauren Gunter shared my view, shared my worry that in the latest polls, the United Conservative Party is looking very vulnerable.
There's still just under two weeks to go.
But there's an interesting turn of events at a Rachel Notley press conference yesterday.
A rebel news alumnus, you might remember him, Kian Becksty, who now has his own online media company called The Counter Signal.
He did a lot of reporting on Rachel Notley.
He was a rebel.
And Kian has that edge to him that makes fans love him and foes hate him.
In that way, I guess you could call him a divisive character.
And then everyone has an opinion on him.
They love him or hate him.
I just want to remind you of when Kian Bexty came upon Anne McGrath, an NDP candidate in the 2019 election, if I got it right.
And she called the cops on him.
Here, just a quick flashback of that, because it's a bit of foreshadowing.
Take a look.
Please go away.
I just want to know the answer.
It's simple questions.
Do you think that the media has given you reasonable scrutiny for your past?
Go away.
I'm not talking to the rebel.
Has any other media organization asked?
Okay, we're in public, so I'm allowed to ask you these questions.
I'm not allowed to ask you questions.
Not on a sidewalk when I've told you I'm not talking to you.
This is harassment.
It's not harassment.
You're a public figure and a communist who wants to represent Albertans.
This is harassment.
It's not harassment.
It's reasonable questions.
I just want to know why you're a communist.
No, I'm just going to call the police.
You're calling the police because I'm asking you why you're a communist.
You're harassing me on the sidewalk.
You can go to your car.
You can leave.
Police, please.
Hello.
Hey there.
I'm Kian.
Kian, sorry.
How are you doing today?
Good.
How are you?
My hands are a little bit cold.
That's all right, so we got a call from Anne McGrath.
Yeah.
Just one, we got her side story.
I'm just trying to get your side story.
Yeah.
So I got out of my car.
I came onto the sidewalk.
It's all on tape.
And I started asking her questions.
She was actually a communist candidate back in the 1900s during the Cold War.
And I thought that I could ask her some questions about her candidacy.
She's running in the election, as you know.
And then she said I was harassing her and called you.
It was an interaction that was less than five minutes, I would imagine.
I didn't follow her anywhere.
I didn't leave this place.
So is it a crime to ask politicians questions?
No, no, we just said we come talk to you.
Yeah, no, I appreciate you guys following up.
Based on even the information that she's told, there's nothing criminal.
He literally saw her on the street, asked her questions in a calm voice, no swearing, no threatening, no blocking, just asking.
And she called the police on him.
It was a scandalous embarrassment, or so I thought, but no, that is now standard operating procedure for the NDP when they see journalists they don't like.
And they do not like Kian Bexty.
They do not like our Adam Sos.
What a likable guy.
One of the most likable rebels, if I do say so myself.
And they do not allow Jonathan Bradley from the Western Standard.
Again, one of the most mild-mannered guys you'll ever meet.
Here's a quick clip of Bradley being told to go away, being called a hate criminal or something.
Take a look at this.
Jonathan Bradley, Western Center, I got a question about the military.
Don't doubt your questions up, okay?
You know, that's policy with your particular outlet where you have operated in hate speech against our candidates.
We're taking questions from you.
I've gone over this, Jonathan, several times.
Happy to continue talking about it.
Happy to have that discussion with your editors.
Thank you for coming.
I have to say, Jonathan Bradley is so nice.
It's obsequious.
He calls me Mr. Levant.
I said, stop doing that.
He's so polite.
To call him a hate criminal shows that the word is nothing but an excuse for people that the NDP hates.
Well, yesterday at a press conference, our friend Rachel Emmanuel was in attendance and she caught the NDP kicking out Kian Bexty.
Without further ado, I will invite Rachel on the show and we will show her videos in a moment.
Rachel, great to see you.
For some reason, you have avoided being demonized by the NDP, even though I know you've worked for this and that outlet.
You've worked for a variety of outlets.
They still let you in, but they don't let in others.
I don't know why.
Maybe it's because you're friendly also, but so is Jonathan Bradley.
So is Adam Sos.
I don't know why they don't let those guys in.
Is there any rhyme or reason who they let in their press conferences or not?
Yeah, so we've been talking about this back at my workplace.
We've been kind of bouncing around a couple theories because it is very interesting and we're not 100% sure what's going on either.
Interestingly, the Alberta NDP actually don't take my media requests.
So up until the election campaign, if I was to shoot them an email saying, hey, can you respond to this?
I wouldn't get a response back.
Once I joined True North, they said to me, we actually don't have dealings with True North, and that is a policy of the provincial party here in Alberta.
So now they're in a situation where I'm showing up at all these press conferences along with a host of other independent journalists and they have to decide what it is they're going to do with me.
So at my very first press conference I went to with them last week, they just simply decided that once they got to the end of the mainstream media reporters in the room, they were going to take questions from the phone.
And I didn't like that very much.
I had driven all the way to the press conference and I hadn't gotten any questions in in a very long time.
So I did what any good reporter would do and I just kind of yelled my question out.
It was a pretty small room.
They were, of course, broadcasting the press conference.
They couldn't really avoid it.
And to her credit, Rachel Notley did answer my question and then I proceeded with a follow-up.
And so at that point, maybe they decided it was just going to be easier for them to let me ask questions.
I'm not sure what the thinking was there.
One of my colleagues, Andrew Lawton, suggested that perhaps they want to allow True North to ask questions because then they can't be seen as, well, they're just completely barring all conservative media outlets.
It's just simply maybe they are barring some that they consider too fringe and they can kind of argue with that by allowing us to ask questions.
So there's a couple working theories there.
We don't have an exact answer.
And even now when I go to the press conferences, I'm always kind of like, am I going to get a question in today?
But the last two I've been to, they've actually handed me the mic to ask my question.
So it certainly seems like kind of an up-in-the-air policy.
Seems like they're making it up as they go.
Yeah, it is unusual.
Now, you asked a good question, if I recall, because I think we showed the clip the other day.
You asked if they had any culpability for the fact that Rachel Notley tweeted out the location of Danielle Smith's press conference that was stormed by two NDP activists.
And I thought it was a good question.
The answer was absurd and comical.
Oh, we do that all the time here.
Take a look at that exchange that Rachel was just talking about.
Rachel Emmanuel with True North.
I wanted to ask you about the protesters that interrupted Danielle Smith's press conference today.
I know that after it happened, the Alberta NDP issued a tweet saying they condemned the protests.
Elections is about time of reading voters.
However, prior to that event, the Alberta NDP had also tweeted the location of Danielle Smith's.
They had also tweeted Danielle Smith's location and where her event would be.
Do you have any regrets about doing that?
Do you think that was a mistake?
It actually might have led to the protest occurring?
No, because my understanding is that the UCP had also tweeted the location of the press conference.
And that's actually where we got the information from.
So it's quite common for press events to be described publicly about where they are.
But let me say that once again, I don't support that kind of intervention in a public event that's designed to deliver message to voters.
Whether you agree or don't agree, our elections and our democratic process is sacred and people need to be able to speak to voters without fear of intimidation or any kinds of threats like that.
So I definitely do not support or endorse what happened.
Well, let's come to yesterday because it was an event that Kian Bexi says was an open invitation to all journalists.
Now, they didn't let Rebel News in or maybe Adam didn't try and get him.
Kian went in and you caught this exchange between Kian and an NDP organizer.
And I'll give Kian credit.
He kept his energy low.
He wasn't rude.
He didn't swear.
And he actually told the NDP organizer what his question was in advance, which, frankly, you know, I don't recommend that.
You want to have the element of surprise.
But that just shows how compliant he was.
He was proving it wasn't a gotcha question or an attack question.
It was a legit question about police funding.
Why don't you set the scene for us and we'll play the video of the interaction between Kian Becky and this NDP organizer before he got the bums rush?
Tell us, set it up, the clip.
Sure.
So yesterday was a very exciting, a very busy day on the Alberta election campaign trail.
A bunch of us were at Danielle Smith's announcement, which was a big one for the province.
And then we quickly rushed over to the NDP one, which was about 10 minutes away.
I knew Kian was coming.
They were actually, they were manning the door at the small private business in Calgary called Madam Premier.
They were unlocking the door and letting people in as they showed up, probably to avoid people that they didn't want coming in.
So when there was maybe a break in them, they had unleft the door unlocked.
Kean kind of slipped in just moments before the press conference was supposed to start.
And I was actually talking to Jonathan Bradley at the time and the room just went dead silent.
It was so awkward.
And he walks in and he kind of slips into the back and he's just standing there behind the cameras, not making a noise, not causing a disturbance in any way.
And sure enough, a couple minutes later, an NDP staffer approaches him and then their hired security approaches him.
And that's sort of when the dispute began and they were like, we're asking you to leave.
And he's like, well, I'm here for the press conference.
I would like to ask Notley a question, the former premier, a question.
And as you mentioned, he even went as far as to say, this is what my question is going to be.
It's a very reasonable question and I want an answer on it.
And then the business owner came up to him and said, you know, will you leave?
And he wouldn't leave.
He stood his ground.
Good for him.
And eventually they actually called the police to get him out of there.
Here, let's watch.
And the reason I want to show this is to show the demeanor.
What a contrast with the storming of Danielle Smith's campaign announcement, shouting, blocking, disrupting, grabbing the mic, physically shoving police, physically shoving security.
Here's Kian, low energy, just saying, no, I'm just here for the press conference.
Take a look at this.
I won't play the whole thing, but I'll play enough so that you'll get a feeling for it.
Take a look.
The bottom line is, I understand that you're the press conference won't take rhythms.
So the service trust conference will not take their exploring the seven story.
So I was going to ask you the question as I say it.
Sure, sure.
Just ask me a question.
I can't get into you.
Give me a question.
Half a dozen of the candidates have supported anti-police rhetoric, including Active OK.
They've supported it and in kind of sound.
And now that the new Janet Brown rule has come out saying that over 50% of Albertans are supporting Pennsylvania.
That's what we told.
They just came out.
Okay.
Does she think it's time to either discipline those candidates or retwerk the anti-police message?
Okay, you've got that as well, Mike.
Yeah.
I'll be curious to hear the response to that.
Okay, we'll get your response back in the second.
No, we're going to ask you if Boy Leave.
You know, Heinz going to wait here for the premium.
The press conference morning started.
I guess it's not happening.
It may not happen if you're going to stay here.
So I'm not going to pull you out here.
I'm not going to put hands on you, sir.
I'm not going to do any of that.
I'm just going to ask you partly again as per Michael to leave the premises.
Don't you think that it's embarrassing that the ex-Premier can't answer?
That question was reasonable, was it not?
That could be your opinion.
I'm not going to share my opinion here.
Okay, that's fine.
You know, my opinion is this is embarrassing for her.
And I doubt that Alberti is going to see that.
This is Wilson.
They'll see this behavior as totally wrong.
You're a socialist communist behavior.
You're definitely telling me this.
Now, I want to say that our rule of thumb is that we stand our ground, but if we are on private property, we respect private property enough that if the landlord or owner says, get off of my property, we comply.
Now, we don't race to comply.
We comply at a reasonable pace, but if it's someone's private place, we leave.
That's the rebel news way.
It's a little bit different when it's in a public place, like a city hall, where the rules are different.
But in a sense, if it's a private business owner saying to Kean Becky, get out, however unfair that is, that's the moment where a rebel news journalist would get out.
But I think Kian, and perhaps he was right on this one, wanted to see would the NDP call the cops on him like they did with Ann McGrath?
And the answer is, you bet they would.
These are socialist tyrants.
These are authoritarians.
They have no compunction calling the police.
They would call the police every day if they could.
Here's how that went.
Now, King Bexley says he's being charged.
I haven't heard any details of that.
I haven't seen the charge.
Standing Down A Politician00:12:12
I'm not sure if he has been.
He says he has been.
I don't know what the charge is.
It would most likely be under the Trespass Act, and that's really tantamount to a ticket.
It would probably even be dropped.
But I don't have the details on that.
I look forward to hearing that.
In a sense, all of this is who cares?
Journalists whining.
There's nothing more grating than the sounds of journalists complaining about how unfair the world is.
But on the other hand, what if the shoe was on the other foot?
What if it were Stephen Harper who would have the police arrest someone at his press conference or Jason Kenney or, well, frankly, Doug Ford does now that I think about it.
I think the CBC would go into DEF CON 1.
Remember when Donald Trump took Jim Acosta of CNN out of the White House press gallery for one day?
It was like a five-alarm fire in the media party down there.
I don't think there was any resistance other than your questions on the subject.
Let me ask you, Rachel, did anyone from the media party, did anyone from the big newspapers, radio, or TV stations, did anyone from the CBC, I ask, laughing to myself, Did anyone object at all to a campaigning politician kicking out a reporter she didn't like, just on spec.
Certainly no one objected.
While this was all going down it was actually super, super quiet in the room for about an hour, like you could hear a pin drop in there.
It was so tense, was so awkward.
And then, once he left, one of the CTV reporters uh, maybe to his credit asked Rachel Notley, you know, this press conference has now been delayed by about an hour and this isn't the first time a situation like this has resulted.
Do you think maybe there is a better way of dealing with this?
And that's actually when Rachel Notley responded by calling he and someone who associates with white supremacist views.
Yeah, let's take a look at that.
Well, you know, it really depends who I'm happy to take to present myself to everybody in the media, and even those that come from a very conservative background and have a very pointed perspective in terms of the questions that they ask.
There is one media outlet that It fits that description.
That I've been very clear.
We will not take questions from until they retract the hate speech that they published with respect to one of our professors.
The protester today does not fit that description.
The protester today is a protester, has a record of acting like a protester, regardless of what the way you gave up probably, and has a clear association with white supremacist views.
And so the answer is no.
No.
I have no idea what that means.
I don't know how you can associate with white supremacist views.
I don't know what that means.
Is she saying he's a white supremacist?
I happen to know about his personal life, and I know he's most certainly not a white supremacist.
Has he said white supremacist things?
I have never seen such a quote.
And he worked for me for years, and I scrutinized him before he came aboard.
He associates with white supremacists.
How do you associate with the view?
I do not know.
But it's like calling Jonathan Bradley the gentlest man around, calling him a hate monger.
It's just a thing to say.
It doesn't have to be true.
So it sounds like CTV was upset about the delay.
Did anyone ask a substantive question, say, is there a better way to do this?
That's a pretty meek defense of freedom of the press.
Did anyone ask, like, you know, in the olden days, Rachel, before the government colonized the media, before wokeism infected every journalism school, I think either other journalists would have left in solidarity, had some sort of a strike, or would have only asked about Keon being ejected, or would have asked his question for him.
Did any of that happen?
Did anyone ask Kian's question for him?
No, and I think, like, for me, this is the age that I grew up in.
I know, as you were saying, you grew up in a time where freedom of the press was actually still respected and really important.
That has not been the case for the entire five years that I've been in this industry.
And for these legacy media reporters, for these mainstream media journalists, they don't view us as reporters.
They don't view us on the same level as them.
They don't view us as worthy of respect.
So they have no issue when we get thrown out of press conference or barred from asking questions.
They don't want us to be there.
They don't like us.
They don't like the competition.
Probably they don't like the fact that we're able to survive and pay for ourselves without relying on government subsidies.
All these things really rub them the wrong way.
They don't like that we're right about pointing out their bias and that Canadians are leaving them for us because they can see right through the bias and they're also tired of paying for it.
And so we're not going to see a peep from these legacy media journalists.
We haven't in years and I don't suspect we're going to anytime soon.
Yeah.
And, you know, the old saying, if a tree falls in the forest and no one's around here doesn't make a sound.
That's the challenge here is the mainstream media, the regime media, the legacy media, the incumbent media, whatever you want to call them, if they don't talk about what happened yesterday, no one will know.
But the only people who are tuned into True North Counter Signal Rebel News Western Standard are sort of contrarians to begin with.
I'm worried that we have a limited reach.
We have a large reach, but it is limited.
Not everyone who watches the CBC or reads the Toronto Star also gets rebel news.
I want to show you what I think is the last known instance of Canadian journalists standing with an independent colleague to stare down a politician who was trying to blacklist them.
And this happened about three years ago, three or four years ago, in London, England, when my colleague Sheila Gonreed was at the Media Freedom Conference.
I was there too.
But Christia Freeland was speaking at, I'm just going to say that again, the Media Freedom Conference.
Sheila and I were there.
There was a gaggle of Canadian journalists, but many of them were European-based.
So they didn't fly in from Toronto or Ottawa or Montreal.
They were in London or whatever.
And so they weren't in the same sort of culture as the media party in Canada.
I would say they were probably the most independent people in their organizations.
So Sheila Gunread presented, asked real questions.
Christia Freeland said, you, you, you, you, and you, come to my press conference, but there's no room for you.
Like, it was in an enormous building, and apparently it only did not have room for Sheila.
And this was so brazen about it.
And Rachel, I have to tell you, in the shock of my life, the other journalists refused.
They refused to accept the excuse or the marginalization of Sheila Gunread, even though she was a rebel news independent journalist.
I just want to show that to you.
So that's four years ago now.
That was the last known instance of Canadian journalists actually standing up to a liberal politician, no less, deputy prime minister no less, over Freedom of the Press.
Take a look at this from London.
The rest of us?
No, no, we all go.
That's nonsense.
No, no, Take us to the room and we can see if we can.
No, we're not going for New York.
We're all going to be a good person.
This is a media freedom conference.
Yeah, this is ridiculous.
Please don't do that.
Yeah, we're not going then.
Yeah, those days are gone.
Those days are gone.
And I'm worried that if Rachel Notley can get away with this as opposition leader on the campaign trail, imagine what she's going to do when she has the power of the state behind her, Rachel.
What do you think?
Well, that's exactly what's so concerning about this all is that she's currently campaigning for votes.
And she's even at one point held a press conference appealing to conservative voters.
And yet she doesn't seem to realize that the best vehicle to reach those voters is through the independent media oaths, which they have turned to and trust.
So the fact that she's already willing to blacklist us and to not take our questions while she's campaigning for votes makes me that much more frightened of what she would do when she's no longer needing to appeal to voters to vote for her for the next four years.
And she has the power of the state higher, the highest land, the highest power in Alberta.
She'll have that.
So I think we can expect to see our voices completely blacklisted for media at that point.
And I don't think, like I said before, I don't think our colleagues in the Alberta Press Gallery are going to make a peep about it.
Yeah.
Well, I remind our viewers that the Alberta Legislature Press Gallery banned rebel news from attending the legislature.
We went around them.
At the time, it was a conservative speaker of the legislature who let us in.
And there's a censorship streak in that free province.
I remind you that back in the 1930s, Bible Bill Eberhardt did not like the media at all.
And so he brought in a group of laws collectively called the Press Act.
I don't know if you know this, Rachel.
And one of the rules was that if they did not like an article in a newspaper, they had the legal power to force that newspaper to run a government rebuttal right next to it.
It was an astonishing commandeering and nationalization of the press.
This went all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, and it was ruled unconstitutional.
And for their fight against Bill Eberhardt's censorship bill, the Press Act, the Edmonton Journal won a special corporate Pulitzer Prize, not for writing, but for fighting for journalistic freedom.
And at least until recent years, in the entryway of the Edmonton Journal building, there was this special Pulitzer Prize.
I don't know if that's even considered valuable or something to be proud of by the Edmonton Journal in 2023.
They are part of Post Media, which is the number one recipient of Trudeau's bailout money.
And I think they're just fine with the NDP.
These are dark days, but Rachel, you, like me, do not curse the dark.
You light a candle.
And that's what we're going to do in independent journalism.
Good luck out there.
And thanks for joining us today.
Yeah, thanks for having me again.
Ren on.
There you have it.
Rachel Emmanuel, one of the few independent journalists left out there.
Stay with us more ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your viewer feedback.
The first one is from Peter Kent, but I don't know if that's the former journalist and cabinet minister Peter Kent.
It could be someone with the same name, but hello, either way.
He says, surely this is talking about George Chahal.
Surely this is not the same ethical MP that went around stealing other parties' election flyers from householders' letterboxes.
Found guilty too after video evidence was shown and had to pay a fine of $500.
Some may want to ask why he did this while he rants on about emails.
Yeah, I mentioned that in my monologue that George Chahal is certainly not coming to the story with clean hands.
He himself stole things out of his own constituents' mailboxes.
That's pretty gross.
But of course, in the Trudeau government, they really don't have ethical standards.
I am not for the kind of rudeness and leaving nasty voice messages that happened to him, but there were no death threats there.
And the fact that he first went to Twitter rather than the police says he truly wasn't worried about it.
NNN says, got a vote for the lesser two evils, UCP.
The ideal party would be Pastor Art's Independent Party, but people have chosen not to get involved.
Too bad.
Pastor Arthur's Civil Liberties Fight00:01:00
Reap your just reward.
Communism is in your face now.
I saw Pastor Arthur a few weeks ago at his hearing in Lethbridge where the verdict was read out against him.
And I understand he has started a new political party, not the Independence Party.
But I don't think that that has a likelihood of getting even more than a few hundred votes in any given writing.
And I frankly wish that Pastor Arthur would focus on his strengths, which are fighting for civil liberties, especially for Christians, and as opposed to getting into the partisan system where I really don't think he has a realistic chance.
And it's a grubby business.
Stay in the civil liberties lane.
That's my personal view, which I would share with him if he asked, which he did not ask, but I would tell him if I see him.
And he's talking about that again.
I like Pastor Arthur a lot.
He fought for freedom where 99.9% of people collapsed.
But it was the fight for freedom that counted, not just a political game.