US a Clueless, Blood-Stained Bully, Risking Nuclear War - Russia's #1 Anchor Kiselyov

US a Clueless, Blood-Stained Bully, Risking Nuclear War - Russia's #1 Anchor Kiselyov

Russia's plain-speaking newsman tells it like it is

Dmitry Kiselyov Thu, May 31, 2018 | 4,817 63

SHARE

It is important to understand that Kiselyov's remarks are aimed at a domestic audience.
His TV channel should really put more effort into the quality of the translation of what he has to say, because in Russian his style and delivery are devastating, and much of the punch of what he says is lost in these lifeless, robotic translations. Mr. Kiselyov, if you see this, you really need to do something about this.
At any rate, if there were good translations of Kiselyov's words, a lot more people in the West would be paying attention.
This is good. Full transcript below:




Transcript:
Dmitry Kiselyov:
The US, as if at point-blank range, is unaware of what is happening, and is continuing ahead without realizing anything, without accommodating any type of compromises. When blood is spilt, then anyone, other than themselves, is to blame.

The master
In the case of the clashes between Israel and Palestine, Palestine is, of course, the always guilty party: as their rhetoric goes, no need to incite violence. They take away your holy shrine, and you, please, just behave yourself, do not resist, but rather say "thank you."
Heather Nauert:
“We have seen how Hamas continues to incite violence. The actions, the activities that are taking place there that you’re all referring to, Israel has a right to defend itself.”
Yes, so what are they rambling on about? Moreover, the main foreign policy issue currently in the US is something else: preparation for the American-North Korean summit in Singapore scheduled for June 12th. This wasn't without scandal.
Remember the other March interview with John Bolton, who is now President Trump's National Security Advisor where he proposed the denuclearization of North Korea based on the "Libyan Model".
John Bolton:
“We have very much in mind the Libyan Model.”
As for what this Libyan model is, everyone remembers. Gaddafi terminated all of his nuclear and missile research in exchange for the lifting of sanctions and normal relations with the West. Seven years later, the US supported a revolution there, and the military aggression that followed. Gaddafi was brutally murdered. Libya, as a state, was destroyed.
Today, with Trump preparing to meet with Kim Jong-un, Trump's advisors are understandably asking: Is the "Libyan Model" suitable for North Korea? In his response, Trump is boisterous. Let's try to sift through his speech together and delve into the speaker's logic.
Please be patient, this will require some considerable effort. But this is important, as the American President is saying this, ready to start a war and get a nuclear response.
Donald Trump:
“Well, the Libyan model isn't a model that we have at all when we're thinking of North Korea. In Libya, we decimated that country. That country was decimated. There was no deal to keep Gaddafi. The Libyan Model that was mentioned was a much different deal.
This would be with Kim Jong-un. And based on this agreement, he'd be there in his country. He'd be running his country. His country would be very rich. His people are tremendously industrious. If you look at South Korea, this would be, really, a South Korean model in terms of their industry, and in terms of what the South Koreans are doing.
They are hardworking and incredible people. But the Libyan model was a much different model. We decimated that country. We never said to Gaddafi, "Oh, we're going to give you protection. We're going to give you military strength. We'll give you all of these things."
We went in, and decimated him. And we did the same thing with Iraq.
Now, whether or not we should have, I can tell you, I was against it from the beginning. Because look at what we have right now. We've spent seven trillion dollars in the Middle East.
Can you believe it? Seven trillion dollars! Right out the window. You might have as well thrown the money right out the window.
And, we've done a lot of infrastructure. We've just had airports approved. You saw that. A lot of things are happening. But we've spent seven trillion dollars in the Middle East. And look where we are right now. It's pretty sad. But the model, if you look at that model with Gaddafi, that was a total decimation. We went in there to beat him.
Now, if we don't make some kind of deal, things will develop following that direction. But if we manage to make a deal, I think Kim Jong-un is going to be very, very happy.
I think when John Bolton made that statement, he meant that we cannot allow that country to have nuclear weapons. We just can't allow that. So that's exactly what he was saying It’s really just the opposite.
Because if you — if you look at — again, you look at Syria, that was a total decimation.”
So there it is. You can just think whatever you want.
We purposefully ran such a long clip for you so that you have the opportunity to enjoy the "richness" of thought and the point of view of the leader of the United States on the eve of his meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
Obviously, Trump will bring the same style with him to the summit in Singapore. And can we expect Kim Jong-un to ask for guarantees? Well, that would be reasonable. So here is what he'll hear from Trump. The response is ready. He has even already mentioned it at that same press conference.
Donald Trump:
“Well, what security guarantees are you willing to give to North Korea, in terms of its preservation? Well, I’m willing to do — we’re willing to do a lot. And he’s willing to, I think, do a lot also.
And I think we’ll actually have a good relationship. Assuming we have the meeting, and assuming something comes of it. And he’ll get protections that will be very strong.
Syria had never had protections. If you look at anywhere around the Middle East. You look at Iraq, you look at Libya. With Libya, certainly they didn’t have protection; they had the exact opposite.
That was — that was absolute decimation. And that’s what we planned to do, and that’s what we did.”
The meeting did not go as planned. But Kim is still interested in asking Donald: Is it possible to reduce the number of American troops in South Korea?
Donald Trump:
“Well, I’m not going to talk about that. We’re gonna say that he will be given some quite reasonable protection, adequate. And we’ll see how it all turns out. I think this: The best thing he could ever do, is to take the deal.”
And if Kim will certainly ask: If I go to this meeting, will this agreement not go the same way as the Iranian Nuclear Deal? In response, Trump will, of course, say: That was a bad deal, and what he is offering is a good deal. Good translates to unconditional surrender followed by complete self-destruction of North Korea.
Why should Kim refuse a "good deal"? Why should we mention Iran here?
Iran? What for? That was a good deal, after all. Then afterwards – repercussions.

This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons