The Duran Podcast - Blinken delivers hard message to Kiev

Episode Date: September 7, 2023

Blinken delivers hard message to Kiev

All right, Alexander, let's talk about Blinken's trip to Kiev, an interesting trip that Blinket made to Kiev. What do you think this was all about? Well, this is the most interesting trip. I mean, it's come out of nowhere, but then, of course, we never get many announcements. He's apparently not gone by himself. He's got the Danish prime minister there with him, which is interesting. He's staying longer than usual. He's staying overnight.

Now, if you go to the US media, there's clearly a concerted effort to tell us that all is well, that he's gone there to reaffirm Americans' support for Ukraine. There's an American official, quite probably, Lincoln himself, telling the New York Times that Ukraine is going to outlast Russia. Now, when people start saying that, when they start saying things that, that kind in the context of a visit like this, I think you need to be particularly careful and particularly wary because that's clearly, to my mind, a sign that we're trying to be, somebody's trying to reassure us that nothing much is changing when a great

deal is in fact changing. Now let's take a few steps back. About three weeks ago, there was a meeting between General Millie and various other Western military chiefs and General Zillusioni in which they discussed the offensive. And Milly basically tells Zillusini, we don't like your tactics, we don't like your strategy, you're attacking on too many front fronts, we want you to focus

everything you've got on the southern front lines, we want you to break through the southern front lines in Zaporosia and drive on towards Tocmack and Militopol and ultimately the Sea of Azov. That's the area of decision. And we don't like the fact that you are

wasting time in Bahmoud and other places. And supposedly Sziluously pushed back a bit, but eventually agreed. And we have had Ukrainian attacks over the last two weeks. We've had lots of reports about a Ukrainian breakthrough, which we've discussed extensively on our programs. But that breakthrough, it's clear now, hasn't happened. I mean, notice that the media in Britain and the United States elsewhere isn't talking about the breakthrough anymore.

Blinken talks about the fact that the Ukrainians are making progress, but clearly they're not making progress. So I think this visit was probably arranged around the time of that military conference. The idea was, wait and see what the Ukrainians do. Will they achieve this breakthrough? If they achieve this breakthrough, well and good,

we get Blinken there, and he comes along and he reaffirms support for Ukraine, and we start laying down conditions for the Russians about the way forward. If the breakthrough fails to happen, if the offensive remains stuck, then Blinken still goes to Kiev, but this time he comes as a bearer of difficult news. and I think when you unpack it, when you unscramble and look what's happened, I think that most probably he's told the Ukrainians, look, your offensive isn't working, you're not following our advice, your tactics aren't sound, in light of this, we have no realistic choice,

we're going to have to talk to the Russians about how to end this conflict because our ability to continue to support you is almost exhausted. We've given you some money, we've given you some more weapons, but frankly, much less than we've given you in the past. And at the same time, it might be, you might not only have to sort of rethink your position about negotiations, but perhaps you need to undertake a reshuffle, a further reshuffle of your military leadership. So Reznikov, your defence minister, is gone. perhaps you need to reshuffle some other people amongst the military leaders because they're not doing what we told them to do. They're not concentrating everything on the southern front lines.

There was another attack on Bahmoud a few days ago, which failed. And, of course, you're still using these small unit, light infantry tactics, which we've criticised many times. You're not heeding us when we tell you that you need to make armoured advances with attack. tanks and all the armored vehicles that you asked us for and which we gave you. So I think that's probably what this is all about. The fact that he's there, two days with an overnight stay, it's a long visit, much longer than the usual visits, that Western officials undertake to Kiev. And to my mind, it's a clear sign that something is going on.

Yeah, usually officials, they travel to Kiev. They arrive there in the morning. They give Aletsky money or weapons. They say, as long as it takes, Russia's going to lose. And then they travel back all within a day. So it is very interesting that he decided to stay the night. He went to McDonald's, had a big Mac and fries. And if this is true, if this is as you suspect, and I mean, we are just, you know,

We're speculating. Yes. But if this really is the case that the Biden White House has finally realized that they can't win this conflict, and they're now going to Kiev and telling the Oletsky regime, look, we're going to have to somehow start some sort of dialogue with Russia because we can't win. We have an election coming in a little over a year, and we need to wind this project down. That's huge news. I mean, that is huge news. What other possible reasons could there be for Lincoln to spend two days in Kiev?

Well, you see, this is the thing because I think that the hard message was probably the fact that the United States. And I stress, I'm sure that it will be the United States, that the United States is going to start having discussion. about Ukraine with the Russians. These will be private discussions. And we, by the way, had a very interesting interview by Naryshkin, who is the head of Russia's intelligence service, the equivalent of the CIA, and who's had meetings with William Burns, the CIA director.

He says that there are contacts between the Russians, Russian intelligence and US intelligence. They do exchange ideas. And he said that he went out of his way to say, The US has miscalculated the war. They underestimated Russia's strength and staying power. And he also said, and this is, I thought, the most interesting thing of all, that when Russia wins the war,

they have to work towards a new international setup to prevent similar things like this war taking place, which looked to me, I have to say this, like the Russians making it clear to the Americans. Look, if you want to talk with us, we're absolutely willing to talk, but you have to talk to us about things that we are interested in and concerned about, not just your ideas of freezing the front lines, giving Ukraine security guarantees, which apparently those discussions are effectively on hold because the United States

cannot give Ukraine security guarantees whilst the war itself is ongoing. So there's all that issue as well. So you can't do that. You can't just freeze the front lines, give Ukraine security guarantees, which are clearly preparatory to bringing Ukraine into NATO

and supplying Ukraine with weapons and all those things. Without actually... I mean, that's a non-starter as far as we are concerned. We want changes in the entire security. security situation in Europe. And we want a major rethink and renegotiation of all of that.

Now, the Americans, obviously, at the moment, are not prepared to consider anything of that nature. But the fact that Naryshkin is talking it this way does suggest to me that they're getting now something that goes beyond those Tier 1.5 talks that those ex-diplomats are undertaking, that they're getting actual contacts from the administration about the fact that they do want to talk a little more substantively about the situation in Ukraine. So there is that. But I think also, I mean, I find it difficult to emerge that there isn't talk about the military picture.

Because on the one hand, if the US is going to start talking to the Russians, they will want to tighten their grip on Ukraine's foreign policy. diplomacy, and that's probably where there's been some discussions with Kulaba. Kaleba has been behaving very, very irascibly lately. He's been angry with the Europeans and all those sort of things. So they want to tighten their control on Ukrainian foreign policy, but they will also want to tighten their control on the Ukrainian military. So they've booted out Reznikov, the defence minister. He was the one who came to the United States and to Europe. Ask for all the tanks, ask for all the guns,

asked for all the armored vehicles, all of which are burning on the steps and which have achieved nothing. So it's understandable that the Americans are angry with him. But they're also clearly annoyed about the fact that Ukraine isn't doing on the battlefields what they wanted to do. So there's been articles in the Financial Times,

clearly it planted article in the Financial Times, Long one, and the Financial Times, bear in mind, is very close to the administration. A long article about the fact that Ukraine persists in using its small unit light infantry tactics. It's not engaging in these big, shiny, new, armored, combined arms tactics that the United States wants it to undertake. So there's a long article about that in the Financial Times. similar article to that effect in the Wall Street Journal. So it seems to me, and of course the other thing the Ukrainians are doing is that they continue to attack around Bahmoud when the Americans told them to stop doing that. So I think that the US will want a tighter control over Ukrainian military operations.

and they will probably, I mean, this is my guess now, but they will probably start to say to Zelensky to the other Ukrainian officials, look, it's not working, your battle strategy is also wrong. You've got to start reshuffling your military commanders. And there's been quite a lot of implicit criticism of Zelluzni up to this point.

I noticed that in the British media, they're starting to talk up another Ukrainian general, General Tarnaski. I'm not making any predictions because I don't know. But let's put it this way. If suddenly, over the next few weeks, we learn that Zilluzni is gone and that someone else, maybe Tarnaski, is taking his place, I personally will not be surprised. No, it makes sense.

It absolutely makes sense. The counteroffensive has failed. you fire the defense minister, but you don't say it's because of the counteroffensive. You say it's because corruption. We know that there's a huge discussion right now taking place in the United States about all the unaudited money that is going to Ukraine. And there's another 24 billion slated to go to Ukraine. And there's a lot of discussion about that. And you look to then pin the blame on the counteroffensive on someone.

and who better than Zillusioni, who has already kind of been blamed for North Stream as well. We're not saying that. The New York Times has said that, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal. They've implied that Zillusioni was the brains behind the Nord Stream sabotage. So who better a person than Zillusioni to pin this all on? And we've been saying on this channel for a long time now that the Biden White House is in election mode. They're thinking about the election. it's only a year and a couple of months away,

and maybe they've come to the realization that they're not going to be able to drag this conflict on until November 2024, and they have to figure out a way to get an off-ramp or to wind this thing down. And, you know, they're going to have to explain the money that was sent, the $150 billion or $200, $250 billion,

whatever that amount is. They're going to have to find a way to explain that. so they're going to say, well, we sent this money and it went to this corrupt guy, Reznikov. What can we do? We didn't know. This corrupt guy took the money and it's all gone now. He spent it all. And so, you know, we've vanquished him to the UK to be ambassador at his punishment.

Or they're going to say, you know, the counteroffensive, it didn't go well. Not because of us. You know, our plan was solid. We said combined arms warfare. We gave them all the weapons. They asked for. we said focus all of your military might in one direction in the south. The Russians will retreat.

You'll split the Russian forces in two. But what can we do? Zaluzni, he wanted to focus on Bahmoud. Not our fault again. So, you know, the Biden White House likes to do this, like to deflect all of the, all of the blame on to others. So maybe, maybe this is what's going on. Absolutely. And I mean, the other interesting thing about this trip.

And, you know, there are reports that the Danish Prime Minister was also there with Blinken, which that gives me the sense, because, of course, Denmark has been one of the most outspoken and fervid supporters of Ukraine in Western Europe. And it's part of the fighter jet coalition. It's one of the countries that's supplying the F-16s. So the fact that there is a European leader also in Kiev, that also reinforces my view that what is happening is that the Ukrainians have been told things, that somebody in Washington has decided they probably won't want to hear. so it needs to be made clear to them that what they're hearing from the Americans, from Blinken, is a united Western position,

that the Europeans are in agreement with it, in agreement with what the United States is saying, and that any attempt by the Ukrainians to play some European states off against the US, against the administration, are not going to succeed. So the very fact that, as I said, the Danish leader is apparently also there. I mean, it could, it, it reinforces my view that this is a substantial meeting, much more

substantial than what the media is suggesting, and that the Ukrainians have been given what they will construe as bad news. Yeah, perhaps the one, the one billion dollars and the 175 million in military aid, that's just kind of the cover. Yeah. What we're really here to do is to try and figure out a way to break the bad news to Olensky. Well, absolutely.

His production team. Well, it is clearly cover, because if you're talking about the military aid, the United States announced another package of military aid about a couple of days ago. So it's very strange that they've split these two things in the way that they've just done. It does look as if, you know, know, part of this military aid package, which is the depleted uranium shells, was, you know, split off in order to give something for Blinken to talk about publicly whilst he was there. There was no reason why this couldn't have been announced in the usual way by the Pentagon with all the other military requests we've seen. And yet, this time, that was how it was done.

Yeah. Yeah, you just got to look at the events, just a lot of. final thought you have to look at the events over the past you know i'm not going to say the past three months even the past two weeks and and it's clear that that the wheels aren't coming off they've come off i mean you don't fire your defense minister in the middle of your your big game-changing counter-offensive you just it's you don't do that of course not you don't have blinkin traveling to kev for two days either no of course i mean exactly i mean one has to look a little... This is one case where one really does need to look beyond the surface events.

Now, by the way, I should say this is exactly how this kind of diplomacy has been conducted in the past. If you are familiar, for example, with the diplomatic history of the Vietnam War, which I used to know very well, this is exactly how it used to happen. You used to get US officials turning up and sign up, making all kinds of public statements. to the media about how the US's support for Saigon was unchanging and unflinching and all of that. And in reality, they would come along and they would speak to the South Vietnamese officials and they would be giving them difficult news, which over time became ever more difficult and ever more problematic for them.

But that is how it was done. That is the pattern of diplomacy. you say one thing to the media, but in private you say something else. I don't believe that Blinken would have just come up to Kiev for two days, had meetings like that,

have the Danish Prime Minister with him in tow if this person was really there, just to announce an arms package which could have been announced in Washington and to have a snack at McDonald's. I mean, that just doesn't make any kind of sense to me. I mean, it's not, it's not, that's not how diplomacy happens. And of course, choosing Blinken, who has been an well-known hardliner and strong supportive Ukraine,

makes it even more clear to the Ukrainians that, you know, this is some, this is, this is, this is, this is the policy of the administration now. You know, they can't phone up the State Department and play it off against the people. Endigan do those sort of games either. That's how it looks to me. Yeah. Yeah, if this was Austin or someone like that, then you can say, okay, they can play the two sides off. But no, this is the State Department, which has been running this show from the get-go. Yeah.

Okay. Big news. If true, big news. We'll see. We'll wait and see. This could be a long process. It could be a very well. I mean, it could be an extremely long process.

I mean, when negotiations start, that's the longest period of a war often takes place. I mean, you know, if you're looking at Vietnam, the United States sent its troops into Vietnam in 1965. By 1968, they were negotiating with the North Vietnamese, but the war ended only in 1975. So, I mean, that doesn't mean that this is going to end quickly. All right, the durand.locals.com.

We are on Rumble, Odyssey, bitch, shoot, telegram, rockfin, and Twitter, and go to the Duran shop. Use the code. Good day. Get 10% off, all merch. Take care.