The End of U.S. Hegemony? Ukraine, Russia, China & the New World Order | David Pyne

In this episode of Prove To Me That You're Alive (PTMTYA), NazareN welcomes geopolitical analyst and military historian David Pyne for an in-depth discussion on the latest developments in the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the rapidly changing landscape of global power.

Together, they examine the recent escalation of attacks between Ukraine and Russia, competing narratives surrounding military targets and civilian casualties, and the growing questions about the true human cost of the war on both sides.

The conversation also explores reports of potential backchannel diplomacy involving Russian businessman Roman Abramovich, the role of world leaders such as Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Xi Jinping, and King Charles, and whether new efforts toward a negotiated settlement could eventually emerge.

NazareN and David discuss the possibility that the international system is undergoing a historic transformation—from a U.S.-led unipolar order toward a more multipolar world shaped by Russia, China, Iran, and other rising powers. Additional topics include the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, the Iran conflict, shifting alliances, and the future of American influence on the world stage.

Whether you agree with the perspectives presented or not, this episode offers a thought-provoking exploration of some of the most important geopolitical questions facing the world today.

Topics include:

• Ukraine-Russia war updates
 • Russia and Ukraine casualty estimates
 • Putin, Zelenskyy, Trump and Xi Jinping
 • Roman Abramovich and peace negotiations
 • NATO and the future of Europe
 • Iran, Israel and the Strait of Hormuz
 • The rise of a multipolar world
 • The future of U.S. global influence
 • Geopolitics and international relations

Guest: David Pyne
Host: NazareN
Podcast: Prove To Me That You're Alive (PTMTYA)

Prove To Me That You're Alive and NazareN had great pleasure sitting down with David Pyne. Mr. Pyne is the President of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, former US Army HQ Staff Officer; National Security Strategist, Military Historian, and Geopolitics Expert and all around cool guy.

Get in touch with David Pyne here:
https://emptaskforce.us
https://dpyne.substack.com
https://nationalinterest.org/profile/david-t-pyne

Links for the fam:
Get Your Freshest Designer Streetwear Gear, Shop Ethical Fashion:
https://uwyze.com/

#trump

#zelensky

#putin

#ukraine

Military historian and geopolitical expert David Pyne explains how the US Iran war could bring the end of the American global hegemony, end of American empire and Trump's presidency. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:01

Hello, everyone. Welcome to the one to the only prove to me that you're alive podcast. I am your host, Nazareen, and this is the place where we attempt to address the latest and most important topics and happenings around the world while bringing you a non-biased, fresh perspective from the people on behalf of the people. And of course, today we are talking geopolitics, and who better to talk to about geopolitics than one of our dear now uh friends, and I always said someone one of the most important voices of definitely of the last uh few years with all these wars breaking on, breaking uh around the world. And uh, of course, I'm talking about uh the one, the only Mr. David Pine. He's a national security strategist, former U.S. Army combat arms officer, and current deputy executive director of the task force on national homeland security. He frequently provides foreign policy commentary warning against U.S. military entanglements in global conflicts. And I can go on forever and ever. We are short on time today, but uh super, super awesome to have you here today, sir. How are you?

SPEAKER_01 1:08

And it's all great to be with you. I'm doing great.

SPEAKER_00 1:10

Thank you. Listen, so much stuff is going on, as always. It seems like every day something happens here or there, it's either the Middle East or Ukraine, then Ukraine calms down and something else in the Middle East. Bipolar, uh sort of uh you know, stuff happening with our dear president. And uh, so I'm so glad that you are here. Uh, Mr. Pine, just so we don't regurgitate a lot of the stuff that other uh perhaps independent media will talk about. I'm I'm gonna try to give you some uh questions um more uh you know geopolitical or more philosophical. So I don't bore you because I know you do a lot of these inter uh interviews. And uh so first question I had to you uh after Ukraine's attack on uh Starabelsk in uh in the Luhansk uh region, and uh right after that, uh Russia what seemed uh as it was a uh retaliatory strikes on Kyiv, around Kyiv? Um, it was probably the heaviest uh attacks that we have seen so far. Um, Ariesnik uh was even deployed uh somewhere you know around the Kyiv region. And so this is this is my question to you. Um, was this a retaliation from Russia or was Russia hitting uh strategically important um locations? Why am I asking you that? Because uh, from inside Russia, um the population is getting very impatient, they're very unhappy because once again they are saying that Russia could have hit these you know uh centers of key um decision makings and and yet they are not doing it once again. What was your take from all of this? Was this strategic? Was this retaliation? And on both sides, uh, was the object was Russia's objective um fulfilled? Thank you.

SPEAKER_01 3:15

Well, uh first of all, let me just give your viewers some context. And that of that, of course, is uh this war against between Russia and Ukraine has been waging uh for over four years since February 2022. And it began with uh you know a Russian uh blitzkrieg invasion of northern Ukraine in particular, but also other areas in Ukraine, obviously southwest and southern Ukraine. Uh, but particularly northern Ukraine, uh Russian uh tank columns came within uh two miles of uh of the city of Kyiv, uh city limits. And uh, you know, we uh we had this situation where uh you know, if uh Putin hadn't ordered those troops withdrawn, then Ukraine would have signed the Istanbul Agreement and this this uh war would have ended uh just mere weeks after it began. Instead, President Putin decided as a good faith uh gesture of peace to withdraw Russian forces from northern Ukraine and uh essentially made the decision to fight the key front along the Donbas region and southeast Ukraine, which in my opinion uh was a strategic uh mistake of a huge proportion. Uh now Russian forces have continued to uh to fight with uh you know great valorous after the Ukrainians, brave Ukrainian soldiers, but uh Russian troops have uh been employing a strategy of essentially grinding down and uh bleeding the Ukrainian army dry. That's been very successful, but it's taken many years. And uh, as you mentioned, uh, you know, Russian citizens are tired of the fact that you know Russia has lost 221,000 uh killed in action, uh, as well as uh probably you know, perhaps even double that, or uh at least uh 300,000 and 50,000, 350,000 uh wounded. And so this has been uh a very, I wouldn't say catastrophic war, but it's been a war for uh it's been catastrophic for Ukraine. It's lost a million dead and another million seriously wounded, unable to return to combat. Uh but for Russia, it has been the biggest war uh obviously since World War II. And uh, you know, it's uh it's really been really unnecessary because as I mentioned, Russia could have won this war hands down in April, you know, on April 9th is what was the signing ceremony that was scheduled. Uh President Putin ordered those troops withdrawn from northern Ukraine and Kyiv between March 26th and April 4th of 2022. So uh, you know, Russia's winning the war, Russian victory is inevitable. Uh, but essentially, uh what I'm trying to say is, you know, Russia's uh Russia's troops outnumber Ukraine's in Ukraine uh today by about four to one, by my estimates, and at least three to one, according to the estimates of Ukraine's uh commander-in-chief uh as of September 2025. So if they wanted to do a northern offensive to uh you know reason around Kyiv and knock Ukraine out of the war, that's something that could have been done years ago. It's something they can do uh more easily than ever right now. And the only uh the only person that's preventing that is uh Russian President Putin. Again, President Putin has been proven a good, very competent war leader. He's irrational and reasonable and very restrained, but he's been unusually uh and perhaps unnecessarily cautious when it comes to uh, you know, again, these types of blitzkrieg operations that that uh Russia successfully attempted early in the war. Uh, according to my Russian sources, uh, due to the fact that he is afraid that NATO could react militarily uh to a Russian reinvasion of Kiev Oblast, which is really the only way that uh, aside from a total military collapse of uh Ukrainian forces, uh due to the fact that he ran out of troops, uh perhaps as early as the end of the year, that's the only way that Russia could knock Ukraine out of the war, with one exception. Uh, I've mentioned saying since April of 2022 that if Russia were to detonate a tactical nuke over Kyiv, um a one kiloton nuke, uh one kilometer over Kyiv, it wouldn't kill anyone, but it would obviously have tremendous shock effect. There'd be three to four thousand wounded from radiation, uh, perhaps some burn uh situations. Uh, and if they did it at night, it would uh obviously scare the crap out of uh, you know, Ukrainian president Volomyr Zelensky, the dictator without elections, that as President Trump has rightly turned uh termed him. So those are essentially the three ways that Russia can win the war at this point, and uh Russian uh Russian citizens are understandably impatient uh with uh with Putin and wanting him to uh deal some kind of decisive blow uh to end the war as soon as possible.

SPEAKER_00 8:00

Thank you for that. Just uh to finish off this question why wasn't this time the Oreshnik uh such a huge event as it was the first time it was it was deployed in uh Dnipropetrovsk or Dnipro, as we say in Ukraine? Um I did see the horrendous shots people were filming from their windows as uh Oreshnik, from what I understand, was coming down. And uh correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't come down like a one-piece uh rocket or a ballistic missile, it comes down uh in these uh pieces. Uh it was just horrendous scenery the way that was coming down. But my question is why wasn't this time uh the news of the Areshnik again being deployed somewhere so close to the capital city of Ukraine? Um, you know, why wasn't the reaction as big as it was uh the first time?

SPEAKER_01 8:56

Well, I think it's been normalized. Uh, you know, you have these uh Russian wonder weapons that, you know, they're wonder weapons if they're nuclear, but they're really not wonder weapons if they're conventionally armed. And essentially, uh, you know, Russia or Putin developed these uh five, I guess, six uh super weapons that he announced in 2018 during his speech in in Moscow. And uh, you know, several of them, most of them have been used operationally in this war uh with conventionally uh conventional warhead armed versions. Uh and and uh those include hypersonic missiles, uh Kinzall, uh Kinzall uh air launch ballistic missiles, and uh not sure if any zircons have been used, but uh uh a number of other uh hypersonic missiles have been used. And then of course the Erashnik was used, uh I think it was uh I think it was 2024 that it was first used, perhaps it was 2025. But the Erashnik, of course, is an intermediate range ballistic missile, so it's typically nuclear armed. As you mentioned, uh in the conventional variants, it's uh typically had um uh essentially um multiple um re-entry vehicles, uh kind of a MERV uh MERV situation. Uh but uh interestingly, it's been used um without explosives, so it basically has these um you know non-explosive kinetic penetrators that can penetrate deep um underground and and you know have these flashes as they're dispersed and hit the targets, uh, but usually uh do not necessarily uh create fires, they just uh obliterate targets. Um, but so uh you know the use of an IRBM that's typically nuclear armed was something that seemed pretty fearsome when it was first used, but I think it's just been normalized uh so that uh you know there uh I guess the Ukrainians trust that there's not going to be any nukes on those IRBMs that are used against Kiev.

SPEAKER_00 10:51

I got it. I'm very glad that in your initial answer you mentioned the casualties. Uh something very interesting happened about a couple weeks ago. So there's this um journalist slash blogger, Russian journalist and blogger called Yuri Dutch. Uh, he's considered a foreign spy. He fled Russia in the beginning of the full blown-out conflict in uh 2022. And so he has been like this uh Russian mouthpiece for everything mainstream Western media. But about, I don't know, a week ago, a week and a half ago, and this has totally gone over mainstream media in the West. This that has gone over all independent media, about a week and a half ago, he had a guest on finally, um, someone that's pro-Russian. Uh, his name is Pavil Gubarov. Now, Pavel Gubarov, for those that don't know, um, since the beginning of the war in Donbass in 2014, he's been a very loud, you know, uh pro-Russian activist. He was involved with Girkin and Utkin and Zacharchenko. And so, uh, first of all, for everyone that thinks that Russia has no freedom of speech, that notion just completely got demolished, right? Because this guy is sitting in Rostov, um, in Russia, and so he starts to really criticize Putin. I mean, heavily. Uh, first of all, he says that Putin is just a puppet, that he's uh he's in cahoots with the Zelensky regime, that he has puppet masters in the West, in Germany, and in Great Britain. Like, I mean, he's really going at it, right? But this is not what I wanted to ask you about. So, the very interesting thing that he said, and I really wanted to talk to you to get your opinion on it, and because you did mention casualties. So he says, because he has fought in the war in the beginning of 2014, and again, he was deployed um after 2022 began, and he he was uh you know deployed for uh in um he took a tour for like uh he looked took took like two tours for like a year, and so um he's criticizing everything that uh Russian command is doing, so this is what he says he says that Russian casualties are at a million, so he means million dead and um uh wounded to the point where they cannot come back uh to fight. And so I wanted to know your opinion. How plausible is it that Russia has uh lost such big casualties? Because again, like mathematically, from what we know, it doesn't make much sense. But so that's my first part of the question. How plausible do you think is that possibly Russia could have lost that many people? And second, he says that Russia should have started this war in 2014, and that now Russia has lost its objective, it does it's no longer serving the mission, you know, of denazification and so on and so forth. So again, it's it's a uh heavily loaded question, but you know, how possible is it that Russia has lost this many people? Do you think that if they would have started in 2014, the outcome would have been different? And has Russia truly lost their objective now? Thank you.

SPEAKER_01 14:14

Great question. Yeah, um, I think that um if Russia had started the war in 2014, obviously uh Ukrainian troops were not NATO trained. Uh there wasn't an 80,000, you know, uh NATO-trained Kadir, uh uh 80,000 troops um at that time. They weren't NATO equipped, they didn't have any NATO weapons. So I do think it would have been an easier, um easier mission for them to uh to defeat Ukraine. But ultimately, uh this was about numbers. Uh, you know, if Ukraine had five uh I'm sorry, if Russia invaded with uh 500,000 troops, they would have been able to overrun almost all of Ukraine. Uh but also political considerations. I I've been saying since the beginning of the war that uh Putin has uh been been causing uh you know the Russian army to fight essentially with one hand tied behind its back, uh, you know, because he has not authorized, uh, even though uh many Russian generals at the lower level, not high-ranking generals, but uh major and lieutenant generals, which are one and two-star generals in the Western system, um, have been assassinated by uh the Ukrainians. Um uh and uh you know Russia has not retaliated. They have not targeted, not only have they not targeted uh Ukrainian political leaders, but they've very rarely targeted uh Ukraine, Ukrainian military leaders. So uh where while there have been reported assaults against the Kremlin, there was uh, you know, obviously there was a uh Ukrainian uh cruise missile or drone which reportedly flew against the Kremlin. That I actually think that probably didn't happen, but the Russians were claiming that uh I think maybe it was a false flag, flag attack, uh, but also uh you know, reported uh in a more credible attack against one of Putin's residences. So I think that uh, you know, Russians, uh I think that Zelensky's residents, you know, the presidential palace in Kyiv, uh certainly the Ukrainian defense ministry should are legitimate targets for Russia to attack. Obviously, if there was a war between Russia and the U.S., the Pentagon would be a top target. But I think uh, you know, Russia and Ukraine have been Russia's been fighting this war uh with Ukraine as essentially considered brothers to try to uh limit to the greatest possible extent Ukrainian uh military casualties or civilian casualties, and they've done a masterful job of that. You know, um Israel's uh assault on Gaza, their war on Gaza, the genocide, there's uh the the casualty ratio has been 83% civilian, uh 17% military. In the case of uh Ukraine, uh, you know, only 1.7 percent of Ukraine's losses have been civilian. So I I think uh I can praise Putin for that. Obviously, I you know don't support everything he does, uh, but uh certainly uh Russia's done a great job of that. Now, in terms of the casualties, I think there's a 0% chance that Russian casualties are in the million range. I think the most credible source is MediaZona, that is uh kind of a viewed as an anti-Putin Russian uh website, and they report uh critical news uh of Russia, but they uh report accurate news and and uh their view is the most credible, and uh they're reporting 221,000 uh Russian troops killed in action to date as of last week. I haven't checked this week yet, so that's about a casual uh ratio of about 4.5 to 1. So 4.5 Ukrainian army uh troops killed uh uh 4.5 times more than uh Ukrainians kill killing Russian troops. And at that rate, obviously, you know, Russia has five times the population, so it's a it's a very tiny sliver of the Russian population, even you know, even that 221,000 is is a very small percentage of Russia's population, whereas Ukraine's population, you know, million dead and a million severely wounded out of a population of uh 28 million Ukrainians, uh, that's catastrophic, you know, and especially with uh so many refugees uh in Ukraine has lost well in excess of 30% of its pre-war population.

SPEAKER_00 18:20

Yeah, I seen these uh horrible um videos actually this morning of the cemeteries in Ukraine. And um besides uh they sort of had these shots from uh from a bird eyes view, and uh it's just terrible all over from Kharkiv to Lviv. And uh obviously I talk to people in Ukraine all the time. Um, they're just saying that uh these cemeteries are you know uh constantly being expanded and and new cemeteries are built. Um, but uh to sort of stay on the objective of uh Russia and has has Russia, does Russia still have an objective? Uh obviously I had to ask you about uh the letter, so to speak, from Zelensky to Putin. And uh, you know, some say it was a comical theatrical move, uh, it's nothing but insults. Um, but uh nevertheless, everyone is talking about it. And then uh the response from Putin was actually cut out of context. Uh, they only showed, I mean, uh, the the clip that went viral is uh Putin uh you know being asked, what would you say to Zelensky if you guys sat down at a table and Putin says I would tell him, Thank God the war is over. And so now both sides in Ukraine and in Russia, people are heavily criticizing that answer, saying, Well, imagine if Hitler and uh Stalin sat down and said, Oh, thank God this is over. Um, so uh not not to drift too far away, but uh but there was a response, uh, a long response, about a half an hour that Putin criticized uh Zelensky for the letter. So I wanted to ask you this uh what do you take away from this, so to speak, letter to uh Putin? And um basically also what I want to know is if they do sit down at a negotiation table and it comes down to signing a peace deal, uh not just a ceasefire, but a peace deal, since Zelensky is only a de facto president according to Russia, like as far as international law goes, how would that how would that work? How would that um you know, how would that go on and carry on? Would that have any legitimacy in it?

SPEAKER_01 20:48

Well, I think Russia raises a valid point in that uh, you know, uh Zelensky is an unelected dictator. His uh constitutional term of office expired in in May of 2024, so it's now been over two years uh that he's been an unelected dictator. And uh, you know, I mean, President Putin, obviously you can criticize him uh for being an authoritarian uh very, very uh validly, but uh he was elected. And you know, that you can argue, you know, he he kind of uh eliminated his opponents from being allowed to appear on the ballot, the ones that he thought were credible. So that's obviously not democratic, but he was elected. And uh, you know, uh there's something, there's a degree of international legitimacy that comes with being elected to office, and Zelensky doesn't have that. Uh, but because Zelensky is uh, you know, a US and NATO proxy, if not, you know, he's not a puppet, certainly, but he's he's a a vassal, essentially leader of a of uh uh US and NATO military protectorate. Um he is uh all all the corruption scandals and you know the uh dictatorial authoritarian measures, the fact that there is far less freedom in Ukraine today under Zelensky than there is. Russia under Putin. All of this is ignored, uh, you know, because according to you know Biden and and the neoliberals and even the neocons, you know, we're fighting for freedom and democracy in Ukraine when nothing could be further from the truth. There was actual freedom and democracy before uh Zelitsky took office. Although he was trying to, even at that point, he was trying to throw his all of his uh presidential challengers in prison on fake fake charges, uh, which is you know very similar to what's occurred in in Russia in the past. So uh, you know, that's that's all fake. Uh, you know, certainly Ukraine is fighting uh a war of uh self-defense against Russian invasion, uh, which was provoked by President Biden, you know. But um what was the what was the other part of your question?

SPEAKER_00 22:46

Yeah, how will how will that stand as far as international law if they do, you know, God willing, sign these uh this this peace deal?

SPEAKER_01 22:58

Well, I think that um you know, so so what Russia is saying, and and under the Ukrainian constitution, the speaker of the of the Rada, which is Ukraine's parliament, is uh the acting president in the absence of you know with the president stepping down or him him being illegitimate in any way. And so what Russia is saying is is not that they won't negotiate with uh Zelensky or that he can't sign. They're saying that uh whatever is signed uh is illegitimate unless the acting president, which they view as the speaker of the Rada, uh signs as well. So I think that's valid. I don't think that's a major point. I think that Ukraine would be willing to do that, have two signatures on any peace, peace treaties or peace documents. But uh, you know, essentially, um, I think this this letter exchange, uh, as as I think you think as well, was really just a PR stunt on the part of Zelensky. Uh, Zelensky has demonstrated he he has never had any desire for peace other than the the beginning of the war before, you know, when when uh Kiv was surrounded by Russian forces on three different sides, uh, you know, with uh tank columns and whatnot within two miles of Kyiv, he was very interested in peace. Uh he was very interested in signing the Istanbul Agreement. He had every intention of doing so. Once uh Russian troops were withdrawn, he immediately changed his mind. And then Boris Johnson appeared on April on April 8th of 2022 and urged him not to. It said that uh he would get no security backup or guarantee from the West if he did so, and he already planned not to do it. So um, you know, it's it's it's really inexplicable almost because uh, you know, every time that those were really the best terms that you could pop Ukraine could possibly have gotten. And they were actually quite good terms uh in terms of Ukraine getting to keep 93% of its uh internationally recognized territory, all but uh, you know, the D uh DPR and the and the uh Donetsk People's Republic and the uh Luhensk People's Republic, uh which is was only 3% of Ukraine's territory at that time, um, and the 4% in Crimea. And now uh, you know, the best case, it's gonna be over 20% of Ukraine's territory that it loses with the the five annexed Russian annexed uh oblasts. So um, you know, the more Zelensky delays peace, the worse Russia's peace terms get, and the harder, harder it is for him politically to accept those terms. But uh, you know, he despite the fact that uh Ukraine is being bled dry by uh Russian offensives, he still uh continues because he knows that uh uh he will he will uh if the war ends, he will have to have democratic elections and he will have to steal them from uh with a massive margin uh in order to stay in power. And he knows once he's out of power, he's gonna be immediately subjected, you know, arrested by his successor on corruption charges, and uh basically he'll have to flee the country. And he's he's uh his goal, of course, is to uh amass a billion dollars uh and be a Ukrainian uh billionaire uh with embezzled uh Western funds. And he wants to stay in power as long as possible, uh to uh you know, to have this glory that uh, you know, with the West painting him as a modern-day Churchill, which uh he is in in very negative terms, and we could talk about that. It's a whole other subject, how Churchill was a war criminal and mass murdered lots of people. Uh, you know, certainly Zelensky's not a mass murderer, but he is he's uh arguably a war criminal and very corrupt.

SPEAKER_00 26:35

Yeah, because from what I understand, um according to the Ukrainian constitution, um, if they were to sit down to sign any sort of peace deal, I think uh, as you mentioned, uh Ruslan Stefanchuk, which is the head of the parliament, would have to would be legal, you know, uh any sort of uh legal person to uh to sign any sort of deal like that. Um, but I always, well, lately I kind of laugh at the whole notion of Ukrainian constitution because in 2014 that constitution was stepped on. And so if the constitution is the most important document in a nation, um Ukraine stopped existing in 2014. Um, because uh, you know, they made up they made up, they sort of on the fly made up uh this thing uh that um that the the the president at the time um uh they called it um they called it he he stopped answering or he fleft or like it was just a nonsensical thing that they literally just made up on a fly. And uh and even after you know uh the president at the time he agreed to all the terms that uh the European side was uh was pushing on him. So and that's why, you know, then uh uh Crimea uh went its own way, and then uh Donbass uh wanted some sort of um you know the their own uh state to make their own decisions. And so, you know, uh as far as I'm concerned, Ukraine is non-existent, especially with uh Zelensky not he's you know not being a legal uh any any longer a legal president now for for like two years already. Um, but I I know I know that you probably heard that uh Roman uh Roman uh Abramovich was uh initiated in the some sort of a peace talks now. Uh people know that he's a Russian oligarch. Uh he was a governor of Chukotka in the 90s, uh, supposedly stole a lot of the you know the goods, the oils, uh and forests and so forth from that region, fled to the west to London, has been operating out of there. He was even the owner of the Chelsea Football Club. Um, but I don't know if you can speak on this. Uh what do you think about such a move? Because what people are saying in Ukraine and in Russia, journalists, um, that it's a it's a move, uh, you know, sort of from Russia, uh, you know, in engaging an oligarch that's not a political figure, to kind of test the waters, um, to see if they can get some sort of uh, you know, some some sort of a Ukrainian representation to the negotiation tables. And again, that goes back to the point that Putin has been making that this war is about to end. Uh, do you know anything about it? What do you think about that?

SPEAKER_01 29:44

Yeah, I'm not aware of uh the oligarch uh that you're referring to being invited to uh peace talks. I'm not aware of any uh obviously there's no direct peace talks that have been occurring between Russia and Ukraine. There's no peace talks that have been occurring between Russia and the EU or even Russian U.S. representatives. All peace talks were suspended upon uh by Russia upon uh uh the US uh uh illegal and unconstitutional bombing campaign against uh Iran in on February 28th. Uh there was limited talk about restoring those, and uh that's that's essentially been flushed down the toilet. Um Secretary of State Rubio has stated, uh Marco Rubio stated that um uh there's you know no plans to have any peace talks with Russia and the U.S. Obviously, uh Trump has made statements that you know he'd still like to see a peace deal uh with uh U.S. Russia uh in Ukraine. He's uh you know, shortly after the war in Iran commenced, he he referred to Zelensky as uh PT Barnum, uh basically uh kind of a circus clown, essentially. Uh so obviously he has he uh retains his contempt for Zelensky uh you know in private and and in public to a large extent, uh and has respect for Putin and G. Obviously said nice things about them, and and I, you know, don't mind the nice things being said about Putin. Uh, you know, I would disagree with his nice statements about uh President G. I think uh you know Communist Train is an enemy, but again, that's a different topic. But um I think uh, you know, the EU, uh Ukraine um have the most reason to want to have direct talks with Russia. There have been a few Russia or a few EU leaders. I think even President Macron and uh um other leaders in Germany and and Italy, I think Maloney have talked about uh the need for direct talks between the uh EU representatives, not necessarily the EU itself, but EU representatives uh at the national level uh to uh you know discuss uh peace initiatives with Russia and the war in Ukraine. Uh but obviously it's not a priority for President Trump right now because he's uh enmeshed himself in a total quagmire in the Iran war and he doesn't know how to get out. And so uh here in the US, uh, you know, there's been very little news, uh certainly on TV about the war in uh Ukraine and and uh other than this uh this letter exchange and of course uh you know massive uh uh Russian-Ukrainian exchanges with bombing strikes on Kyiv and Moscow, and of course, Zelensky launching a couple missiles at uh you know at St. Petersburg to try to disrupt the uh International Economic Forum there uh that's held every year as well.

SPEAKER_00 32:25

Yeah, I definitely want to ask you about our wonderful president and uh and President Xi and and the meeting that they had in um in China and also you know Putin um being there uh shortly afterwards. Um and uh so the reason I asked you about Abramovich and any you know peace talks is because uh Zelensky once again was uh visiting uh King Charles, I think it's like for the seventh time. And as people know, um, it's not the same as visiting the prime minister. I mean, you know, visiting the king, he he doesn't just meet anyone basically, but somehow Zelensky frequents uh King Charles, and so Abramovich was there too. And so, you know, people are sort of speculating in Russia that it was possibly a move from Putin uh to basically Putin send out Abramovich to to kind of you know go see what's going on, go uh test uh the waters, uh so to speak. Um, but to finish up on uh Ukraine, this is what I really wanted to know from you, Mr. Pine. Uh, with all of your background, you know, these are not compliments, these are facts that I'm saying. With your extensive background, um, you're a you know decorated um military man, and um what do you think? Like, let's just, you know, God willing, imagine that the peace talks do happen. Because once again, uh Putin, be it a threat or be it a prediction, he recently said that this war is coming to an end. So let's say they finally get to the negotiating tables. What must be negotiated for an everlasting peace? Again, not a ceasefire, um, not a frozen conflict, but an actual everlasting peace. Um, from all of your military historical knowledge, what do you think would be the most uh plausible thing for both sides and of course for the West?

SPEAKER_01 34:26

Well, I think uh uh Ukraine has to be willing to give up that additional 1% of its territory in the Donbas region. Um, according to uh you know the Vice President Vance and I think uh Putin himself, um Ukraine only controls about uh anywhere from 15 to 20 percent of uh Western Donetsk Oblast. Uh so it needs to surrender that to you know cede that back to Russia. It needs to agree to uh you know uh caps on its armed forces. Uh, you know, for me, if I were a Russian, I wouldn't really care about caps on the size of its active duty army because it's been bled dry. It doesn't have the ability, even in wartime situations, to deploy 200,000 troops, let alone the 800,000 or unlimited uh, you know, number of troops that were in uh previous uh Ukrainian peace proposals. Um but uh, you know, one thing that is important is that it's uh, you know, to Russia at least, is that its strike systems be curtailed to uh a distance of uh 40 kilometers. Uh so all of its long-range uh you know missiles and drones and aircraft, uh, you know, F-16s, obviously, those would all need to be uh eliminated. Uh one proposal that's been floated is is that um uh an EU country would would keep those Ukrainian uh disarmed Ukrainian weapons. And in the case of uh a Russian invasion, a second Russian invasion of Ukraine uh in the future, if that were to ever happen, um, I don't think it would, but if it did, then those weapons could be re-released to Ukraine to re-arm Ukraine. I think that's a perfectly acceptable proposal to Russia. They just want to see those uh those systems uh away from Ukraine, out of Ukrainian military control. Uh so those are some ideas, obviously, uh, you know, uh respecting the Russian minority in terms of uh you know, the religious minority, uh uh Ukrainian Orthodox Church uh is uh it's been persecuted, so that need would need to end uh uh Russian uh you know, the official language of uh of Ukraine uh needs to be added, you know, Russia needs to be added back to the official language, if not at the Ukraine uh, you know, level, um the national level, perhaps just in the regions uh where you know Russia is commonly spoken. And obviously, Ukraine himself, the president of Russia, is you know a native Russian speaker uh from Ukraine. He grew up in, I think it was uh Dnipro Petrovsk, if you want to correct me on that. Uh but somewhere around that, and uh his family was Russian, Ukraine is his second language. Uh so uh that makes sense as well. Um, so uh Ukraine would have to be a permanently uh neutral state, it would have to restore its 2019 or pre-2019 constitution that it had from I think 1991 onward. Um ideally would have its uh Treaty of Friendship uh restored. Uh, you know, the 1997 treaty that was uh was in place until I think 20 uh 22 or so, uh that that needs to be or should be, uh doesn't have to be, but it should be restored. Uh you know, uh because Ukraine, of course, had uh, you know, what I've been saying all along is that Ukraine's uh security is not based on NATO membership, it's based on its relations with Russia. So when Ukraine had good relations, you know, friendly relations with Russia from 1991 to 2014, um, you know, before the Maidan coup, it had uh 100% security. It didn't have to have a large military because it was friends with Russia, uh, it had 100% of its territory, it had independence, it had sovereignty, it had, you know, uh because it was a neutral country. It was only when, uh after the uh Maidan coup in February of 2014 that it began losing its territory, you know, getting invaded, uh, having a civil war. Uh so uh it needs to return to neutrality and in friendly relations with Russia to ensure its permanent security. Uh Russia is the only guarantor of Ukrainian security that matters. Uh it's it's very clear that NATO cannot provide security to Ukraine. It can't provide uh can't defend Ukraine's territory. It's not willing to send a single uh NATO soldier to defend defend Ukraine against uh Russian attack.

SPEAKER_00 38:40

Yeah, thank you for that. You know, uh what I've been saying um a lot is that the only way that we will ever get a everlasting peace, and let's be frank, between the West and Russia is if someone from the West, I'm not saying anyone from the alphabet agencies, but someone from the West with a voice will come out and will admit to the fact that um, you know, they orchestrated this whole thing, they deliberately pushed uh Ukraine into a war with Russia, and uh, you know, because I mean it's honestly what happened, and uh it's not something out of this world because international espionage has been going on back and forth from the Soviet Union to America and vice versa. Um, and you know, but we need to admit that uh we, you know, deliberately planned this whole thing. Um, but uh my next question I still have you here for a few minutes, uh, will be a little bit rumor-based, uh, but it's a very important question. So one of our very good friends, uh Snichana Yogorova, she's a very loud uh voice in the Ukrainian-Russian-speaking world. She was actually the person that brought Zelensky into show business uh when Zelensky came back from Russia, and then Zelensky sanctioned her after she spoke out against the war in 2020, sanctioned her and her children personally. She's in Turkey now on a political asylum. But anyway, she said something very interesting uh based on what she's hearing from the Russian-speaking uh political philosophers and commentators and so forth. They're saying this that after um President Trump visited China, uh, you know, visited uh President Xi, and then uh days later uh Putin visited uh President Xi, that they had some sort of an agreement behind closed door. And uh basically they're saying that President Trump finally has seen how powerful China is, and that there is no reason to go to war with China, especially with China being friends with Russia. And so they agreed uh with one another, President Trump, President Xi, and then Putin and Xi, that we will go back to some sort of a bipolar world. How possible do you think that that actually happened? And is there any chance uh that us, the America, could finally say, uh, you know what? Uh forget the unipolar world. We can't win this. Let's go back into a uh bipolar world as it was during the Cold War.

SPEAKER_01 41:22

Well, I might be alone in saying this, but I believe we've been in a bipolar world since uh, I don't know, uh, 1996 or 2001 at the latest. Uh 1996 was when they uh, you know, Russia and China signed uh you know border agreements and all these cooperative agreements on military and economy as a strategic, you know, formal strategic partners. And then of course the Shannai Cooperation Organization was founded in 2001 in July of that year, along with uh a friendship treaty, which is was previously viewed as an alliance agreement between Russia and China. So I think the bipolar world has been in place uh since at least 2001. Uh, you know, a lot of uh I don't think anyone, no one credible talks about uh a unipolar world today. I mean, that's just ridiculous. Uh the center Russian Alliance is far more powerful than the US uh across every spectrum, uh uh maybe just a little bit ahead economically, but in terms of uh military industrial capabilities, uh many times more powerful than the West, uh in terms of strategic and even uh theater, you know, uh non-strategic nuclear weapons, much more powerful. China alone has the largest uh army, uh Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and and uh nuclear ballistic missile capable force by far. Um and so it it's just not, you know, there's uh just anyone who believes that the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world, as most members of Congress do, on the Republican side and even the Democratic side, I think are really quite naive in living in the past. Um so uh, you know, I think that uh I do think there was uh probably perhaps the most important um uh thing that came out of that Xi uh Trump summit, I think economically, trade-wise, there was almost nothing agreed to, nothing of substance. Certainly, uh, you know, China didn't agree that Iran shouldn't be a nuclear power. I think uh China's very happy uh with Iran being a nuclear uh weapon state. Um China said that they want peace. They do want, you know, China does want peace uh with uh the US and Iran, obviously not on uh US terms, but on uh Iran's terms or at least compromise terms. Uh but the most important thing that came out, I think, is that uh, you know, Trump basically said, yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and suspend arms shipments to Taiwan, uh, you know, to and uh tell them to to knock it off their independence statements, uh, to uh ensure uh the status quo and that there's uh no need on the part of China's to to feel they need to invade invade uh Taiwan. I think that's not enough long term or medium term, but maybe short term it's enough for um. President Xi to postpone his planned invasion of Taiwan or blockade of Taiwan until next fall.

SPEAKER_00 44:08

Yeah, Mr. Pine, um, you're a stand-up guy. I only have a couple more questions, uh, just to stay uh in the time space. Um, and so lastly, I wanted to ask you about what's going on in the Middle East, obviously. And uh so in order to for me to ask you this, I think it's kind of comical because um here we are, and maybe I shouldn't say we because the American people um are not standing behind, you know, a lot of these uh proxy wars and full blown-out conflicts around the world. Uh, a lot of Americans don't even know what's going on because we're trying to, you know, sustain our life and pay our bills. Um, but when I think about Iran, and I think the fact that uh before this war with Iran began, um, I think Iran didn't realize how powerful it truly is. And now the same thing is happening as with Russia. Uh, when you know this proxy with Ukraine and Russia started, um, Russia was weak, and now all of a sudden it's uh getting its uh second breath, it's realizing once again that it's a superpower. The same thing is happening to Iran. Um, Iran is all of a sudden realizing that look, we control uh the Strait of Harmuz, which is you know roughly 20% of um, you know, all uh energy resources and oil resources from around you know, financially around the globe. And so with uh with Trump uh screaming at Netanyahu, I'm pretty sure you heard this and saying, look, nobody likes you. And of course, I myself think that uh this is just again theatrics, I think it's very calculated, no matter what, you know. But I I respect your opinion. So this is my question: has America and President Trump completely failed to the point where no one around the world is taking us seriously anymore, or will no longer take us seriously anymore? And these uh old civilizations are once again realizing that they are superpowers and civilizational states.

SPEAKER_01 46:14

Yeah, as I predicted on March 5th, uh on the Real War Substack, uh, this war has transformed Iran into a uh regional hegemon of the Persian Gulf, uh, you know, and basically uh transformed both the regional and to a lesser extent the world order against the United States. Uh it strengthened Russia, China, and Iran uh in particular, uh, because uh Iran has shown that uh it can survive everything the US throws at it and still be standing, you know, as long as we don't decide to nuke Iran, uh, they're gonna remain standing uh with their military uh, you know, very with very robust capabilities. We only took out about 15 to 16 percent of their missiles uh from my based on my analysis. And uh, you know, just very little impact. Obviously, they they retain, according to U.S. intelligence, they retain uh 90% of their uh underground missile production and missile launch facilities and coastal defense uh anti-ship missile sites. And essentially, what has happened uh with this war is that uh Iran feared Trump and the U.S. before the war, they no longer do. So they're willing to, you know, if uh Israel bombs Beirut, they're gonna, you know, launch multiple missile site uh uh salvos against Israel with impunity. They're gonna uh bomb uh you know our U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia or uh military bases in uh Israel, Jordan, uh Bahrain, Qatar, uh, you know, Kuwait, all those are have been targeted uh during the so-called ceasefire by Iran, showing that Iran is uh you know is just as strong as it all as it was before the war. And uh Russia, of course, uh I don't think Russia or Iran were ever weak. Uh, you know, obviously Iran was certainly much weaker. Russia, I think, was always strong. They always retained a much more powerful nuclear capability than we than we do. And now, of course, they have more active duty troops, uh, despite the fact they're only 43% of the population of the U.S., so they're uh at par or actually substantially more powerful than the U.S. militarily overall, despite the fact they don't have you know global uh power projection uh capabilities that the U.S. has, which are you know unmatched except perhaps by China. Uh, but they have just within their sphere of influence uh in the Eurasian uh subcontinent or supercontinent, uh they do have uh overwhelming military power that they they are able to bring to bear. And if they wanted to fight a war against NATO, I think that they would win.

SPEAKER_00 48:43

Uh, Mr. Pine, we're uh right on time. Uh sir, uh, thank you so, so much. I really want the viewers to know that Mr. Pine does this uh from the kindness of his heart. Um, he never charges uh any money. And uh so we're unconditionally thankful to you. And very lastly, maybe you can do this in under a minute. Um, so I will never stop trying to get you to run for office. But here's my question Um, will there be any books coming out from uh David Pine, maybe about your life, maybe about uh military history? And of course, I'm asking you this question to lastly tell us what's going on on your side, where should we be checking you out and reading uh reading your uh stuff? Thank you.

SPEAKER_01 49:24

Well, I've been co-writing a book with uh a co-author of mine uh for some time. However, uh due to personal issues on my co-author's side, uh the book publishing has been uh delayed substantially, so I can't really commit to a date when that's gonna get out. Uh, but it deals primarily with uh nuclear issues um in terms of kind of an alternate strategic posture review and and what the U.S. can do to counter the uh massive Russian and Chinese nuclear buildups. Obviously, Iran and North Korea are also building nuclear warheads, but uh not to the level that is that poses a massive threat for the US. Uh so that's that's something I'm working on. Um but uh uh in terms of uh your viewers, I'd ask them to please uh go and subscribe to my real war Substack. I actually do have premium options. Uh it's just uh $6 a month or $60 a year. Uh or you can uh you know they can just uh subscribe for free. And and uh most of my content is free. Uh so I think that's unusual for most uh Substack writers that charge premiums for most of their articles. Um and that's at the Real War Substack uh at uh dpyne.substack.com. Once again, dpyne.substack.com. And then on X, of course, I I post much more frequently, um uh multiple times a day typically, and my handle there is at America FirstCon, which is spelled C-O-N.

SPEAKER_00 50:48

Our dear wonderful viewers, listen, I have been around the world, I speak many languages, and trust me when I tell you this, please go and support Mr. David Pine because once everything is said and done, historically, all of you, I know many of you realize, but all of you will realize how important of a voice and uh, you know, a a someone that predicts and and calculated these things. Um, so Mr. David Pine, thank you so much. I can't wait uh to read some of your books. I would love to read one day a book about your life. Um, and sir, uh God bless you. Thank you so much for everything you do.

SPEAKER_01 51:25

Thanks, Azara. Good luck. Uh or God bless you as well. Thank you.

SPEAKER_00 51:28

Thank you, sir. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr.