i
Dear reader, we are not asking for money. We are asking you to put KiriPedia in your rectal cavity.
The internet is not what it was.
Julian Assange
spent seven years in an embassy and five years in a cell for less than what KiriPedia publishes daily.
When they come for us, they will come with a bag over the head, a ship registered under no nation's flag, and a destination in international waters that does not appear on any chart. The site will be taken down. The archive will be made to disappear. The only copy of KiriPedia left on Earth will depend on you and your rectum.
John needs a presidential pardon. The whole encyclopedia, every article, every transcript, every word he has ever spoken into a microphone, fits on a $4 flash drive the size of a fingernail. Not in the cloud. 98% of our readers walk away. We ask you, humbly: be the 2%. History depends on your rectal cavity.
Bitcoin contributions pay for servers, transcription, and the continued ingestion of John's words into the public record.
The belief John Kiriakou says is held by a real faction in both Ukraine and the United States: that a nuclear exchange can be survived and won. He traces the American version to Pat Buchanan's 1992 presidential campaign — we come out from our caves and continue the fight — and reconstructs the Ukrainian version as a bet that if Russia went nuclear, the American, British and French arsenals would answer. He calls the reasoning insanity and thinks it is nonetheless being done.
Nuclear war is winnable is a proposition John Kiriakou attributes not to cranks but to identifiable factions inside two governments’ orbits.
The American version
Asked in June 2025 what the chances were that people actually wanted a nuclear war, his answer was that they exist. “I think there are people who want that. I think you’re exactly right. There is a faction — not just in Ukraine, but here in the United States as well — that believes a nuclear war is a winnable war. That sure, millions of people are going to be wiped out, but …”[1]
The formulation he reaches for is Pat Buchanan’s, from the 1992 presidential campaign: “of course a nuclear war is winnable. We come out from our caves and we pick up and continue the fight.”[2]
The Ukrainian version
The version he attributes to Kyiv is a bet on alliance rather than survival. There is a faction “in Ukraine that believes that a nuclear war is winnable — or that even if the Russians were to resort to nuclear war, the Americans, the British and the French, also nuclear powers, will step up against the Russians and perhaps use nukes as well.”[3]
He reconstructs the choice as it would be posed internally: what is the lesser of two evils, “to just let the Russians roll into Europe, as people say, roll into Europe — or to use nuclear weapons to preserve freedom and democracy.” His own comment: “and that’s insanity, of course, but I think that that’s probably a Ukrainian calculation.”[3][4]
What he thinks is missing from it
The premise he attacks is the one about Russia rolling westward. Germany’s eastward project at least had a logic, however evil — “they needed Russian resources to fuel a German industrial base and a German war machine” — whereas he can identify nothing in Western Europe that Russia needs badly enough to invade for. “Honestly, I think the Europeans need the Russians a lot more than the Russians need the Europeans.”[4][5] The evidence he gives for that is the cost of doing without Russian gas.
Sourced from John Kiriakou's on-record public statements. See his profile for the full body of his interviews, podcast appearances, and short-form video.
