(2026/05/23) Opposing the current "European Russia Hoax” is not fifth-column activity; it is looking out for the West.
If it is not clear to you that the Ukrainian War—which the Biden administration is, in large part, responsible for starting, and which large parts of Europe and NATO still support—is a completely misguided foreign policy project, you need to watch this clip.
Back in 2023, in a talk with Glenn Beck, David Sacks bluntly, and with great accuracy, laid out what the Western anti-Russian strategy would lead to. It would 1) impose huge costs on the West, 2) not change Russia for the better, and 3) benefit the West’s real rival, which is China.
Not getting the Ukrainian War resolved is simply stupid — and makes you think that the global Western elites are nothing but children!
It might sound as a conspiratorial or megalomanic to most Europeans, but that unfortunately is what the global political landscape look like today.
What has happend since then (2023):
Instead of ending the conflict when Joe Biden left office, as Donald Trump attempted to do, Europe’s political elites strengthened their demands that NATO countries continue supplying Ukraine with weapons. Too many European politicians had publicly supported Biden’s anti-Russian strategy, and changing course would now make them look stupid.
At the same time, European integration — the further centralization of power in Brussels — is being promoted by pointing to Russia as an external threat. For political elites, it is a dream to move decision-making further away from the public scrutiny that still exists at the nation-state level in Europe. That is what the “European Russia hoax” is about.
Google Germini: Here is a cleaned-up, highly readable transcript of the conversation between David Sacks and Glenn Beck. The repetitive filler words, stuttering, and timestamps have been removed, and the dialogue has been organized by speaker for a smooth, professional read.
The Proxy War and NATO Expansion
David Sacks: I’ve been warning about this since the Ukraine situation started. This is a proxy war of choice that we've gotten into. Ukraine is not a member of NATO; it is not a treaty ally of the United States, and we are not required to defend it.
Moreover—and I think this is the deeper point—we engaged in a series of actions going back to 2008 that the Russians viewed as highly provocative. They warned us over and over again: "It is categorically unacceptable for you to try to bring Ukraine into NATO." Yet, we persisted in that mission. We have these crusaders at the State Department who just want to keep expanding NATO, and I don't know why they can't see that it is unacceptable to the Russians.
It's the same way that the Soviet Union trying to put nukes in Cuba was unacceptable to us in 1962. We have the Monroe Doctrine here that says no distant great power can put troops and weapons in the Western Hemisphere; we consider that an intolerable security threat. That is exactly what we have been trying to do with Ukraine for a long time. This was very easily avoidable in my view.
U.S. Involvement and "The Kill Chain"
David Sacks: Now we're at the point where we are effectively a co-belligerent in this conflict. We're not just providing them with money and weapons; we're providing them with intelligence. We have commandos on the ground directing the flow of those weapons and intelligence. We've had administration officials brag about painting the targets on Russian generals so they could be killed, and bragging about providing the intel to sink the Moskva, which is the Russian flagship.
Imagine if we did that when we were in Vietnam. If Brezhnev went to Vietnam and said, "Our whole goal here is regime change, we're funding you, and we're painting the targets for you."
Glenn Beck: My gosh, it's crazy. It's crazy.
David Sacks: It's crazy. People sometimes compare this to Afghanistan, where we bled the Soviet Union. But that was a covert operation—Operation Cyclone. We didn't have American flags on the boxes of the Stingers and the weapons we were giving them. It was very different. Here, we're not just giving them weapons; we're providing the whole "kill chain" for them. It's a tightly woven web of information services.
The weapons by themselves aren't as valuable. For example, the HIMARS isn't valuable unless you also give them the targeting coordinates straight from our satellites in space. So, the Ukrainians are pushing the buttons, pulling the triggers, and taking the bullets—but it's the Americans who are providing the targets, the intelligence, and even taking credit for the counter-offensive last fall.
There's a New York Times story where they describe the critical moment behind the Kharkiv counter-offensive. The Ukrainians came to the American generals with their plans, and the generals said, "No, this isn't good enough, let us fix it for you." It's just crazy.
The Geopolitical Fallout: Russia and China
David Sacks: Then, when the obvious downstream effects of this happen—which is driving Russia into China's arms—we react with outrage and surprise. It's like total shock, as if we didn't know it was going to happen.
Glenn Beck: I know, it's like, "Are you kidding?" Of course Russia and China would become tighter allies. China sees what's happening, and they know that if Russia falls here, the gunsights of U.S. neocons and U.S. hawks will be entirely trained on them next. So, it's in their national interest to help Russia. This was entirely predictable, yet we think we're going to prevent them from pursuing their national interests by expressing condemnation and outrage. It’s like our spokespeople and diplomats are children.
It’s the elites vs. everyone with common sense. People are looking at each other saying, "Look, I didn't vote for the guy, you did vote for the guy, but I'm with you—this is nuts." The elites running the State Department, the Pentagon, the media—all of it. We all look at each other in day-to-day life and go, "You and I could fix this, it's not that hard."
David Sacks: I know. The State Department one is really crazy because their job is supposed to be diplomacy.
Glenn Beck: And they're not trying to lessen conflict.
David Sacks: No, their objective is regime change. They've been conducting these regime-change operations for a while. They did it in Ukraine when Biden was the Vice President; our State Department went in there anyway. And you know what happened three months later? They put Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma. I'm sure that was just a coincidence. How do you think that's going to end?
We now have the records showing three Biden family members, including Hallie, the daughter-in-law. I don't know what information she had that was so valuable in Hong Kong for an energy company, but Biden's still out there saying it's not true.
Media Narrative Control
Glenn Beck: Is anything ever going to happen to these guys?
David Sacks: Probably not. I'm not saying there's not a lot to find, I'm just saying that one of the media's enormous powers is that they get to decide who gets investigated. Effectively, they will make you a target and gin up outrage if they don't like you, and if they like you, they'll sweep it under the rug.
I don't understand how the Hunter Biden thing isn't a bigger story. He is put on the board of a Ukrainian energy company three months after Biden gives the "attaboy" and approval for our backing of a coup there. And it's not like he has energy experience—he's utterly unqualified for the post. It's just crazy to me. But once again, the media decides what we care about because they just won't cover it if they don't like it.
