The Duran Podcast - Britain's drive for war with Russia w/ Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos (Live)

Episode Date: June 10, 2025

Britain's drive for war with Russia w/ Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos (Live)

Okay, we are live with Alexander Mercuris in London, and we are joined today first time on the Duran. Very happy to have with us, Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos. Dr. Papadopoulos, Marcus, how are you doing today? Welcome to the Duran. It is a pleasure to have you with us on this live stream. And before we get started, tell us about your book. And I also have a link to your ex account as well in the description box down below where people can follow you. Well, first of all, I'd like to say how delighted I am to be joining both of you today

and how very much I'm looking forward to our discussion. Regarding my two books, the first one, Arise Rasea, the return of Russia to world politics, was published in January of 2021. And essentially, it is an appraisal of contemporary Russian foreign policy, though I do provide history to the Russian Empire, or a brief history, to the Russian Empire, to the Soviet Union, making the argument that the Soviet Union did not collapse, rather the Soviet Union was dissolved, and dissolved by three treacherous Soviet politicians. Boris Yeltsin of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic,

and of course Kravchuk in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and Shushkavich in the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic. Secondly, my more recent book, Whitehall in Stalin's Russia, British Assessments of the Red Army, 1934 to 1945, was published in November of 2023. And this book focuses on two points. Firstly, how British assessments of the prowess of the Soviet armed forces from 1934 to 1945 played a major role in British strategic planning in the aforementioned period

and also how ingrained Russophobia in Whitehall, principally amongst, the military officers and intelligence officers resulted in not just underestimating Soviet military potential, but also it played a role, and I emphasize a role, not the role, a role in undermining the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of May of 1942 and the Grand Alliance. So essentially, I argue that one of the main reasons as to why the Grand Alliance fell apart after the end of the Second World War was on account of Russophobia in Whitehall. And I should also say that it was myself who introduced the word Russophobia to audiences in the West at the beginning of 2014, following the Western orchestrated. against the then-President of UK Victor Yanukovych. And I'm very happy now to see so many people who are aware of Russophobia.

Also in Whitehall in Stalin's Russia, I provide a very long history of Russophobia in Britain from the 1500s all the way up to 1945. Okay. Well, we'll be talking about some of these topics, no doubt today, because certainly we will discuss Britain too. And I have a link to those books in the description box down below, and I will add them as a pinned comment as well to Dr. Papadopoulos's Amazon page when the live stream is over.

So definitely check out the works from Dr. Papadopoulos. So before we get started, a quick hello to everyone that is watching us on Odyssey, on Rockfin, on locals, the durand.com, also on Rumble and everybody. on YouTube and a big shout out to our moderators on YouTube as well. Zareel and Peter, get to have you with us moderating the YouTube chat. So Alexander Marcus, let's talk about what is happening in Russia. Indeed, let us do so. Now, I was in Russia about two weeks ago, though only for a very short time in St. Petersburg, to be precise.

and I was meeting with, I was attending a conference, a lawyer's conference, not military people at all, can I just say. They were all civilians. Many of them had had contacts with the West. Some of them had been involved in law firms that had had Russian law firms that had had close contacts with the West. Some of them had worked in Western law firms. Some of them had contacts with the Council of Europe, the organization that heads the, of which the European Court of Human Rights is a part. So you could argue a community of Russian civilian people who have had the strongest possible interactions with the West. And as I've said to various people, if you wanted to find liberal views or pro-Western views, you would perhaps have expected to find them within this community. I didn't. Of course, I wasn't able to speak to everybody

at that forum, but I found nothing of that sort at all. What I found instead, and this takes us back to the things that Dr. Babadobulus has just been talking about, is a very strong sense of continuity between the conflict in Ukraine today and earlier conflicts which Russia has been involved in, first and foremost, obviously, the Second World War. Thirdly, secondly, obviously conflicts that have existed between the West and Russia, and especially between the West, the Russia and Britain, which is, of course, Dr. Papadopoulos and mine adopted country. So I would like to, so, you know, no better person to discuss all of these things than with Marcus. And Marcus, let's first of all begin. I mean, do you agree with me that the Russians do see

continuities between the current conflict in Ukraine and the previous conflicts of the Second World War and other periods in their history? Certainly, my impression was that they seemed to think that this was just another case of the West gagging up against them. Well, I should first of all say that Anglo-Russian relations has long intrigued me, intrigued me, indeed fascinated me. From the very time that diplomatic relations were established between Britain and Russia in the 1500s to the present day, we see distinct patterns, this very distinct patterns, not just in the last 80 years and in the last hundreds of, 100 of years, 100 years, but over many centuries. So essentially, Britain and Russia, whilst they have been on the same side as each other, for example, in the First World War and in the Second World War, they have never trusted each other.

Indeed, they have never liked each other. And of course, I am talking about the British establishment and the Russian, Soviet, modern day, Russian establishment. So what we see happening today regarding relations between London and Moscow is anything but unprecedented. Let me cite an example. The Crimean War, which ran from 1853 to 1856, for the first year of that war when Britain and Russia were fighting each other directly, not by proxy, directly, there were diplomatic relations between London, and Moscow. That is something most people are not aware of. If we fast forward to the present day, yes, there is a very compelling argument to be made that how Britain sees Russia, indeed how Russia sees Britain is no different to how both sides saw each other during the First World War and the Second World War. Their mindsets are very different. and many of their values are very different.

So no one should be surprised at what we are seeing today. If we go back to the Crimean War, the language which was being used in the House of Commons about the Russian Empire at that time is not so different to the language which is being used today by British officials regarding Russia vis-a-vis Ukraine. So clearly there is a very distinct pattern at play. And people need to understand that during the Second World War, it was a business relationship. It was a business partnership. And as my book, Whitehall in Stalin's Russia, demonstrates by using primary source evidence,

i.e. British government files, both sides behind the scenes were at each other's throats, not so much British diplomats, but the military officers and the intelligence officers. The language, for example, that military observers were using about the Russians, when they were fighting together against Nazi Germany, is quite remarkable. But when you consider the reality that both sides over centuries have despised each other, it is no surprise whatsoever. Is that consistent with the kind of commentary that you see today in so much of the British media describing the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine? I mean, it is consistently denigrating and it's awful.

And I mean, I've seen some commentators, for example, one in the Delhi Telegraph. I'm not getting a name, by the way. He refers regularly to the Russian army as the Russian ord. Words, a language which would not be acceptable, used about any other army in any other place. It wouldn't be used, for example, to describe any army in the Middle East. This is something which reflects what has happened to Britain, especially in the last 20 years. I am of English, German and Greek ancestry, and I'm very proud of my English ancestry. However, Britain, in my opinion, no longer exists.

There is nothing remotely British about this island today, and that is another story. So what I am driving at is this. British media today lacks journalists who have even the most fundamental. fundamental knowledge and awareness about Russian history, about Russian culture, and about the Russian mindset. If you go to the archives during the years of 1941 to 1945, and if you read the articles in the columns published, for example, in the Times, you will see the difference. Not that I'm saying that journalists in Britain at that time were truly independent because they weren't, but they're written English. was beautiful. Their knowledge of Russia was vastly superior to the knowledge, and I use the word knowledge in a very loose way of today's journalists in Britain. Suffice to say, mainstream

journalists in Britain today and the columnists in Britain today are not true journalists. They're not true columnists, and they are anything but experts on Russia. They are simply propagandists. They're simply useful idiots. And it is dreadful to read what they are writing about the war in Ukraine. They are projecting Russia, which is a military and nuclear superpower, as a backward primitive force. What they are not telling their readers, if we assume they have that knowledge in the first place, that Russia, if need be, can call up 20, million soldiers that Russia has all in all in service and in storage over 26,000 tanks. The Russian military industrial complex ever since 1947 has been tasked with the responsibility

of sustaining the Russian armed forces in a war with America. So the Russians in Ukraine can lose a very large amount of hardware, let's say in a month, Russian armaments factories, which are the size of towns in Britain, for example, can replenish the losses on the front line in Ukraine in a very short period of time. My estimation is that the Russian high command is using between 12 and 15% of the overall capacity of the Russian armed forces for war in Ukraine, which is a very very important. very small percentage. And yet look what the Russian armed forces have achieved so far. Over 20% of the land which comprise Ukraine have been captured. Vast losses have been inflicted on the Ukrainian armed forces in terms of soldiers and hardware. And also the Russian military industrial complex and the Russian armed forces as a whole

have drained the stockpals of major NATO countries, including America. Indeed, only recently Trump acknowledged that in certain departments, the American military is now lacking weapons because of the amounts of American weapons which were sent to the Ukrainian government and which have either been destroyed or captured by the Russians. Indeed, and we've had a strategic defence review in Britain, which describes the condition of our armed forces and says exactly the same thing. It talks about in particular the condition of the army.

It talks about our shortage of tanks, the fact that we have no self-propelled Howitz has left, the fact that we have severe ammunition shortages. There are problems at every conceivable level, certainly of our ground forces. And it's quite explicit that this is connected to the fact that we have been sending army, are weapons in vast quantities to Ukraine. But if I can just go back to that commentator who,

as I said, use that particular word to describe the Russian military today. What I think I should mention about him is that like a lot of the military commentators, the Russian-related commentators in the telegraph where he writes, he is a former British army officer and he seems to me to have exactly the the same kind of outlook and perspective on Russia that you spoke about British Army officers and intelligence officers of the 1940s during the Second World War having about Russia then. It's a Russophobia is a historic phenomenon in Whitehall and at Westminster. And no doubt whatsoever, and it's been demonstrated today, that Russophobia is alive and well in Britain. But I should point out that behind the scenes, there are no doubt observers, officials in Whitehall,

who have a very different opinion to the British policy towards Russia. My book, what Stalin and Whitehall's Russia demonstrated, highlighted, a group of diplomatically. in the Northern Department at the time, the Northern Department focused on Eastern Europe, which included the Soviet Union, who wanted a relator, who wanted an alliance between Britain and the Soviet Union from the mid-1930s onwards to try and deter Nazi Germany from expansionism. And I believe that in 30 or so years, when the archives are opened up, we will see, assuming, of course, all three of us are still alive and kicking, we will, we will, we will, We will see these files demonstrate that there were conflicting arguments in the Foreign

Office regarding the policy towards Russia. So what we see on television, what we read in the newspapers, what we hear on the radio, is one thing, but there is a lot going on behind the scenes. It is the same reason as to why I say there will not be a war between America and Russia and there will not be a war between Britain and Russia because what we see happening on the surface is very different to what we see happening behind the scenes. So if we take Britain and Russia, despite the immense animosity being expressed by both sides publicly, they're still trading with each other. Britain is still purchasing Russian natural resources. And as I said,

the first year of the Crimean War, both sides had diplomatic relations with each other. And we should also be thankful for this. There are people in Britain and in Russia from the political sector, from the military sector, from the intelligence sector, people who's named you will never know, people who you'll never see on television, and their counterparts in Russia, both sides talk to each other every single day of the week. They are tasked with ensuring that war does not break out between themselves. So whatever our criticisms are of, for example, British foreign policy towards Russia, we should remember that there are people in Britain and in America who are heroes,

who have been talking to each other, especially since the end of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. And these channels of communication are fascinating. They talk to each other in various ways, and they meet in various places. So yes, things are very dangerous. And there is always the potential for an accidental war between the West and Russia. But aside from an accidental war, there will not be a war between both sides, because a war between both sides, a conventional war between both sides would rapidly escalate into a nuclear war. That is why those channels of communication exist between America and Russia, and that is why those channels of communication exist between Britain and Russia. And once again, I am not talking about people in the House of Commons. I'm not

talking about columnists in the Telegraph or in the Times or their counterparts in Russia. No, these people you will not know. I mean, you say that we've been hostile and have disliked the Russians in Britain since the 15th century. And I think overall that is certainly true, but there has always been a tradition also in Britain of taking great interest and even liking for Russian things. I mean, many people don't know the fact,

but the first allusion to Russia was made by none other than Shakespeare, and it was a positive one. He refers to Russia in one of his plays, the Winter's Tale and he's heroin in that play is actually Russian. Again, it's a fact that hardly anybody realizes. And as I said, she is a very, very sympathetic person. And we've had other periods of time in British history where we've had intellectuals in particular taking an interest in Russia. There was the so-called Russian phase just before and during the First World War when there was a lot of big interest in Russian literature, for example.

So there is that tradition, but it never seems to have any effect on policy. It doesn't seem to work through to the politicians. And why is that? It certainly is the case that from the 1500s onwards, when diplomatic relations were established between Britain and Russia, amongst some officials, and in particular amongst members of the British public, There was an interest in Russian culture. And for example, during the Great War, during the First World War, one British diplomat wrote in a minute, a file which I came across the National Archives in Q.

He lamented how he wished the interest, how there would be more cultural interest in Britain vis-à-vis Russia. because he said if there was more cultural awareness and interest of Russia in Britain, this would help political relations between the two countries. And he was absolutely correct. The problem is quite straightforward. Britain and Russia, be it the British Empire, the Russian Empire, British Empire, then the Soviet Union, modern-day Britain and modern-day Russian Federation are rivals.

So even when there was interest in Russian culture in Britain, that was always surpassed by the fact that both countries were bitter rivals for each other, especially from 1870 onwards when the Russian Empire expanded all the way through Central Asia to the border with British India. It was really from that period onwards, from the Russian Empire, 1870 onwards when the Russian Empire was on the border with British India, when Russophobia took on a whole new dimension in Britain. So whilst it is sad that two European countries, two Christian countries, bitterly dislike each other, we have to acknowledge that both are rivals with one

another and it should also be known that whilst there is clear animosity, historic animosity in Britain towards Russia, there is also historic animosity in Russia towards Britain. I am again talking at a political level. I'm not talking about the average person in Britain and the average person in Russia, but that it is simply an irrefutable fact that Britain and Russia have always been rivals with each other. Indeed, they have sometimes been enemies and they always will be. The most important thing for me is that the channels of communication which exist behind the scenes between Britain and Russia remain intact. If once the war in Ukraine ends and it will end sooner rather than later, which I have said from day one will result in Russia either capturing all or most

of Ukraine, at some point after that, tension between London and Moscow will start to decline. And I sincerely hope that relations can somewhat improve, because they did improve after the Crimean War, and they did improve at certain stages during the Cold War. But the reality is that Britain and Russia have never liked each other, and they never will like one another. I have to say when I was in Russia and when I had been to Russia before, my major impression there is not so much of dislike of Britain as complete bafflement. I mean, they just don't understand why we have this attitude towards them.

I mean, I can accept that, you know, given the time of the Second World War and before, when Britain was a great power, it was taken very seriously in Russia and was seen as a major adversary and rival. And I think I'm right in saying that Stalin himself, for example, was always deeply suspicious of the British, even though he did develop a relationship with Churchill. But today, the Russians do not think of us as a great power in that sense. And they do ask, and I've had this question put to me many times, why exactly therefore, have you got this big issue with us?

It's not as if we're really coming for you. I mean, this isn't about you at all. But why do you constantly pick battles with us? And I've heard this from many people at many different levels of Russian society for, you know, people that you meet in cafes and other places, right up to people who are much closer, if you like, to the political system. Stalin had a pathological distrust and dislike of the British ruling elites, not the British people, the British ruling elite. Stalin's premise when dealing with the British, even during the Second World War, was when the British say one thing, think the other. Because if they say black, they actually mean white. Now, turn into the present day, on the face of it, Britain does not come across as having a tremendous amount of influence and power in the world.

But the reality, and it's a reality that the Russians behind the scenes know, is that Britain has an enormous amount of influence and power in the world. So I have noticed in recent years that Kremlin officials are referring to the Anglo-Saxon world, to the Anglo-Saxon powers. Now, they don't mean that in a derogatory ways. Because as I said earlier, I am part of English ancestry, and I'm very proud to be part Anglo-Saxon. But what the Russians are driving at, and I have mentioned this for nearly 20 years now on television and in my books, that when we talk about the Anglo-Saxon world, we are talking about one world. We are talking about Britain, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Because the political ruling elites in

America in Canada, Australia and New Zealand are overwhelmingly of Anglo-Saxon heritage or Anglo-Celtic heritage. So for example, Scots-Irish heritage. And of course, 80% of the Australian population and a similar percentage of the New Zealand population is of Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Celtic ancestry. So the Anglo-Saxon world, which I believe Britain and America are at the heart of, for example, the city of Westminster, has immense power and influence in the world. So yes, some Russians will say, well, look at the size of the British armed forces. Yes, they are right, but I would argue that there is a very sinister, very malevolent transition going on in Britain and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world and the rest of the Western world at present. But that is another

subject that's another subject for another time but the reality is that the heart of the global banking system the heart of the global financial system is in britain it is in london it is in the city of westminster so why whilst as i said on the face of it britain doesn't appear to have much power the british ruling elite most certainly do and i just want to make it clear i'm not talking about the likes of Stama or Johnson or Sunak. These are puppets. These are useful idiots. I'm talking about the heart of the British ruling elite. And the heart of the British ruling elite is the monarchy, followed by the aristocracy, followed by the banking elites, the financial elites, the military chiefs and the intelligence chiefs. So when I say on television, the British establishment,

the British ruling elite, I'm not talking about the useful idiots such as as Stama or David Lammy. I mean, Starma and Lammy's knowledge of international affairs is almost exclusively, let me repeat that, is exclusively confined to Wikipedia. They just do what they're told. The person running the foreign office is not David Lambe. Indeed, it wasn't run by his predecessors. It is the permanent undersecretary of the foreign office. and the permanent undersecretaries are drawn from the heart of the British ruling elite, such as the aristocracy. So Britain and the whole of the Anglo-Saxon world has immense power.

But there are very serious challenges now to the ruling power in the Anglo-Saxon world, because, of course, we have Trump in the White House. And I'm not going to unsay one word of criticism I have made about Trump over a lot of, the years. But I am glad he won the election because he is anti-woke. He is anti-mass immigration. He defends the spiritual and cultural values of the Western nations, be it Americans, be it Greeks, be it Britons, etc. He is talking to the Iranian government. He is talking to the Russian government. Something is better than nothing. The problem facing Trump in his administration is that they are not fully in control of America, the deep state remains entrenched in power. So the war against the deep state

in America will go on for many, many years. So Trump in his administration needs to establish a foundation upon which their successes can continue the war against the deep state in the hope that one day America can be cleansed. Why does it never get discussed in Britain to any real extent that in fact, far from having Russia as an enemy today, it would make far better sense for us to actually have Russia as a friend. I mean, the one person I know who is quite prominent in British politics, who does talk about this sometimes, is Dominic Cummings, by the way, though obviously he talks about this less. But specifically, I mean, we, as you rightly say are a country that is based on finance and services and that sort of thing. They are huge

in natural resources in industry. He talks about the scale of the industrial system that exists there. Surely we are complementary economies. Whatever we were in the 19th century, we are very different today. So would it not make much better sense for us rather than looking all the time to pitch quarrels with them to actually try and find ways forward together with them in a way that would actually work to our baby. I just give one example when the Russian companies were doing big IPAs in London, which they were, that actually was very, very useful and good for the British stock market. Ever since that stopped, it's been sagging, it's been going downhill. And you can find that right across the entire financial services industry, the loss of the business with Russia has been a significant blow.

The British ruling elite, or the British establishment, or indeed the British deep state, does not wish to share power in the world with Russia. Firstly, there is the historic mistrust, suspicion and loathing of Russia at the whole. part of the British establishment. That is not going to change. Secondly, and this is now a new or a relatively new development. As I said moments ago, Britain and the rest of the Western world is being attacked. The cultural and spiritual values of the ancient Western nations is under siege.

There are malevolent forces in the Western world which are seeking to to erode our cultural and spiritual values. So the British establishment also looks at Russia, not just as a historic adversary, but as someone as a country who defends religion, who defends culture, who defends traditional family values. And of course, woke ideology, which is one of the weapons, of the Western ruling elites or the globalists,

they wish to spread this foul ideology to the whole world. The only country that can truly stand in the way of that and can actually roll it back is Russia, because Russia is a superpower. So therein lies a reason as to why the British establishment do not wish to take advantage of, as you rightly said, Alex, the rich economic potential which exists between the two sides. It's because for the British establishment, they do not wish to feed the Russian economy with more money because Russia stands

in its way. But as I said earlier, both sides are still trading with each other. And this is quite remarkable. They still have diplomatic relations with each other. And yet they They're fighting a proxy war with each other. They're still trading a war of each other. But as I have previously said, and I can only reiterate the first year of the Crimean War, Britain and Russia, they're fighting against each other. British soldiers and Russian soldiers are fighting and killing each other in the Crimea. And both countries have embassies in each other's capitals.

Politics is a strange business, and in my opinion, it is the most peculiar of all businesses. What happens when the war ends? Because I completely agree with you, by the way. It can only end in one way. And I think that's now becoming widely accepted. There's still few people who deny it. The trends are not just obvious, but they're becoming difficult to deny. And that is that, you know, we're going to have a Russian victory.

And Russia is going to emerge as the victor in a conflict, which we were very unwise, in my opinion, to allow ourselves to ever get drawn into. What are we going to do then? The Russians are going to be the great power in Europe, once more, the great military power. In Europe, do we continue with the policy of hostility? What can we do? We're getting worried about the Americans leaving. The whole strategic defence review that I was talking about was talking about this.

I mean, it's implicit in every sentence and every paragraph that there's the concern that the United States cannot maintain the commitment that he did. Do we continue in our hostility to a country far more powerful than our own, or do we at least try to do what you said, those diplomats of the past and hopefully the present were doing, which is trying to find a way forward? When the Soviet Union in 1940 incorporated the Baltic states into the U.S. USSR, the British government never recognized the Baltic states as being part of the Soviet Union. Then in 1944, when the Red Army recaptured the Baltic states, the British government never

recognized the Baltic states as part of the Soviet Union. And from 1944 to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, 1991, the British government, along with the American government, I should add, never recognized the Baltic states as part of the Soviet Union. But there was still, during the aforementioned periods, there were still diplomatic relations between Britain and Russia. There was still trade between Britain and Russia. There were still cultural exchanges between Britain, Russia or the Soviet Union to be more precise. That is what I believe will happen when the war in Ukraine ends. And I believe that at the very most the Russian army will advance to and capture the Ablasts of Jitemir and Vinica, which if you're looking at a map of

Ukraine are to the west of Kiev. Thereafter, I'm not so sure the Russian army will advance into those regions because that region or that region largely is historically known as Eastern Galicia. So when we talk about today Ukrainian nationalists, we really are talking about Eastern Galicians, because there's no such thing as a Ukrainian race. We are talking about Eastern Galicians. So once the war ends, yes, of course, there will be a great deal of hostile rhetoric emanating from London at an official level and from other capitals in the Western world. But what are they going to do? They're not going to go to war with Russia over Ukraine for the reasons I mentioned earlier. There would be a nuclear war. The British establishment is very

skillful in adapting, adapting to new circumstances. Indeed, the English, British rule in Leith have been in power for nearly 1,000 years since 1066. There's a reason for that. And after most of Ukraine is captured, perhaps even all of Ukraine, but I think most of Ukraine is captured, the reality will be that Russia, that the lands of the Russian Federation have enlarged. And that will be it because the British do not seek, the British establishment do not seek to continue this hostile rhetoric indefinitely. At some point, it will start to die off.

And again, there have been many times in the past over centuries when the hostile rhetoric emanating out of London was enormous, and it is enormous today. But hundreds of years ago, it started to die off. And that will happen after the war in Ukraine ends. And I have no doubt at some point in, say, 50 years' time, it will increase again. And then it will die off. I can only reiterate my submission. Britain and Russia have never liked each other.

and never will like each other. The most important thing is that diplomatic relations are preserved between both countries, that they continue to talk to each other, either at an official level or at a more secretive level, that is all I care about. The fact that they're not going to be the best of friends or the best of allies, it doesn't disappoint me,

it doesn't frustrate me, that's reality, that's realpolitik. But all I want is for them to keep on talking and especially those channels of communication which have existed ever since the end of the Cuban missile crisis. Indeed, if you want to get an example just of the past of how things change in Britain, just listen to newsreels about Russia from the 1940s, British ones, and then compare them, for example, the British newsreel made during the time of Alexei Kossigin, that was the Soviet Premier at the time,

his visit to London in 1967 went to all impressions. You might think that Britain and Russia at that time were the best of friends. Of course they weren't, but that was certainly the impression that one that was conveyed. And of course he met the queen and he had tea with her and he was taken around and he was, he met people in all kinds of factories and everything looked very, very friendly, except of course that it didn't last for very long. Dr. Borshevik was taken to meet the Queen.

Yes, absolutely. Bolshevik was taken to meet the Queen, absolutely. So, Marcus, Dr. Marcus Brapidoblus, thank you very much. He was, by the way, because Kasegan was an actual Bolshevik. He joined, I think, in the 1920s. So, thank you. He was a very, very old guard. But anyway, Dr. Marcus Bacobdus, thank you for answering my question so fully.

As you said, British-Russian relations are fascinating, very, very, very complex. subject and a very important one. Thank you for answering my questions. If you could stay there for just a short time, I'm sure that Alex has some questions to put to you. Yes, we do. We have quite a, quite a lot of questions for Dr. Papadopoulos. Let's start with Mark Hewitt, who says, Dr. Papadopoulos, was the 1991 coup attempt in Russia orchestrated to bring Yelts into power? If we're talking about the failed KGB coup in August of 1991 against Gorbachev. Well, no, the KGB and the upper echelons of the Soviet military saw the writing on the wall. They saw that with Gorbachev in power and with Gorbachev not taking decisive action against Yeltsin, that would result in the death of the social. Soviet Union. The Soviet military and the KGB had already lost control of Eastern Europe.

Therefore, they did not want to see the Soviet Union die. So by the KGB attempting to overthrow Gorpatov was a way of removing a hopelessly inept, weak leader from power, which would have meant that Yeltsin would have fallen. In March of 1990, Gulbachev held a referendum in the Soviet Union. And with the exception of the Baltic states, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova, all of the other Soviet republics voted in this referendum. And the Soviet people were asked, do you wish to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

76% of the Soviet people voted, yes, we wish to preserve the Soviet Union. Thus, Gulbachev had a mandate. He should have taken action against Yeltsin. He should have declared martial law, but because he was a weak, useless leader, he didn't do it. So the KGB took things into their own hands in August of 1991, but it was an ill-fault-out attempted coup and it was rushed and it ended in spectacular failure. And it meant that Gorbachev would remain as president, but the power was with

Yeltsin. And from that moment onwards, it was obvious that Yeltsin would use his power, along with Kravchuk in the Ukrainian SSR and Shushkiewicz in the Belarusian SSR to kill the Soviet Union. Matthew asks, is a large European conflict in the future likely? No, I do not believe that because of the existence of nuclear weapons. Whilst nuclear weapons are, let's be clear, evil, they do keep the peace. And I would rather see a world which has nuclear weapons, as opposed to a world, in particular, Europe, which is fighting against each other. There have been so many civil wars in Europe that we do not wish to see another one. So with the existence of nuclear weapons, there will not be a war between Russia and Britain, or Russia and France, or Russia and Germany,

regardless of what Russian officials and British officials and German officials, etc., say in public. Behind the scenes, they are saying something very different to each other. Raphael says Peter the Great moved and lived in England for a moment. Yes, indeed. We should also remember that Europe's royal families are ultimately one royal family. So one of the reasons why for the first year of the Crimean War, diplomatic relations were still in existence between the British Empire and the Russian Empire, is because the British royal family and the Russian war family were the same family.

So both sides wanted to try and sort out, between themselves quickly this little dispute, which is how they saw it. But because of the amount of jingoism in Britain at that time, the amount of Russophobia, for example, in beer halls in London, Russophobic songs were being sung by men and women in those beer halls. It meant that Britain would have to take steps to end the diplomatic relationship with Russia and also vice versa because there was a lot of anti-British sentiments at that time in the Russian Empire. So we should always bear that in mind if we're talking about Peter the Great, if we're talking about Catherine the Great, if we're talking about Nicholas II,

they were all related one way another to the British Royal Family. So Laris asks, is Russophobia because of orthodoxy? No. It is because of of two reasons. Firstly, the perception in Britain that Russia, be it czarist, be it communist, be it modern day Russia, is comprised of savages, is a land of barbarians. And that is built upon two notions. Firstly, that Slavs, which is what Russians are overwhelmingly, that Slavs are not just inherently disorganised and inefficient, but they are inherently brutal.

They are inherently barbaric. The other notion is the sense of Anglo-Saxon superiority. Now, again, there's nothing wrong with being Anglo-Saxon, but the heart of the British establishment believes that because they are Anglo-Saxon, though we can make another argument to counter that. But anyway, officially they are Anglo-Saxon, it means that the Russians, for example, are simply pygmies. And indeed, in the files I used in Whitehall in Stalin's Russia, numerous British officials in the 18th century, the 19th century, 20th century, referred to Russians as pygmies in comparison to Anglo-Saxons. Indeed, British officials even remarked that the look of the Russian alphabet, the sound of Russian letters is barbaric.

They even remarked during lunches at the Soviet embassy during the Second World War that Russian officials couldn't eat bread properly. And they said it's because they're primitive people. So again, it's because of this perception that Russia is a historic adversary. and because of this perception that Russians are uncouth, indeed barbaric, and thirdly because of this sense of Anglo-Saxon superiority, and therefore the Russians are simply peasants in comparison to Anglo-Saxon superiority. Elza says Lavrov yesterday about the involvement of agencies, quote, I wanted to say the Anglo-Saxons, but now I'll have to do without the

Saxons just without the support of the British? Well, it is, again, this is another subject matter. Is the heart of the British ruling elite truly, truly Anglo-Saxon? Well, I think their bloodlines are somewhat different. But whilst I understand why Russian officials and other officials in the world talk about the Anglo-Saxon rule elite or the Anglo-Saxon establishment, establishment, I would rather use British establishment because I think it has certain advantages. But nonetheless, yes, Lavrov has referred to the Anglo-Saxon powers, to the Anglo-Saxon

world. But then look in Britain today. You know, mainstream media is, I can't say claiming, because if you claim it means you have evidence. So mainstream media in Britain is saying that there's no such thing as an Anglo-Saxon race. And to argue otherwise is, quote, racist. So these are remarkable times we are seeing in Britain as well as very dangerous times. Ralph Steiner asks, was World War I caused by Britain losing economically? There were numerous factors behind the outbreak of the Great War. One of them, of course, was the rivalry between the European powers. Another was this. The emergence of the German empire from 1871 onwards on the back of the Franco-Prussian war was not tolerated by the French,

the British or the Russians. They did not wish to see a new empire emerge because they were very suspicious of the Germans and fearful because they knew that the Germans were very strong people and are very organized, a very disciplined, a very efficient people. So when the Kaiser spoke about, Kaiser Wilhelm spoke about having Germany, having a place in the sun, the British, the French and the Russians were immediately alarmed and they wanted to clamp down on that, which resulted in the Germans becoming very angry and as a result antagonistic. And they decided, well, if Britain can have an empire, if Russia can have an empire, France can have an empire, why shouldn't Germany have an empire?

Then you have the arms race, the naval arms race, the dreadnoughts, for example, between Britain and Germany. Then you have the different treaties being signed between the various European powers. It was inevitable that there would be a war, a major, major war between themselves. And what we saw happen in Sarajevo in 19. 14 was simply the spark. If the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire hadn't been assassinated, there would have been another event in Europe which would have proved to be the spark of the Great War. Iranian kiddo says orthodoxy in Russia started by Kievan Rus' ruler, Vladimir's conversion in 98. He was baptized on the same day he was married to Byzantine Princess

Anna Porfirio Yenity in Hirssonisos, now Sevastopol, a Byzantine territory. Indeed, and that is why the first Russian state in history was Kievan Rus. Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities. That is not Russian propaganda. That is not being a Putin apologist. These are historical irrefutable facts. I have said before on television for nearly 20 years now, if you go to the National Archives in Q in London and up until the end of the 19th century, so before the end of the 19th century, you will not find a British diplomat or a British military official talking about the existence of a Ukrainian people or a Ukrainian race. Why is that? Because there was no such, there is no such

thing. The Ukrainian national identity came about as a result of the East Galician's and also the Austrians. The Austrians, obviously bitter rivals of the Russian Empire helped to devise the concept of the Ukrainian national identity as a way of trying to undermine the Russian Empire from within. But again, you will not find the British official in the 17% of the in the 18th century, in the 18th century, in most of the 19th, all of the 19th century, referring to Kiev as a Ukrainian city, as the capital of a Ukrainian nation. No. So that is why Kiev and Russ is the first Russian city in history, and Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities. If someone wants to argue against that, I say to them, go to the National Archives in Q and find me a

documents from say the 18th century prove me wrong and if you prove me wrong i'll eat my hat and i will acknowledge i'm wrong but you won't because for some 25 years i've been researching at the national archives and you will not find anything indeed only recently a few weeks ago i was at the national archives and i found a document uh by a senior british diplomat this is after the war when he said that we the british government do not acknowledge the existence of a Ukrainian people. He said for us, a Ukrainian people, are mostly Russians or Poles. Sanjewa says, we will preserve you, Russian speech, keep you alive, great Russian word. We will pass you to our sons and heirs, free and clean, and they in turn to theirs. And so forever,

This is the last stanza of courage by Anna Akhmatova, Russian soul likely never understood by the West. And sadly, as a whole, I don't think the Russian soul, the Russian mindset, will be understood, though there have been people in Britain over centuries who really have understood the Russian mindset, who have understood the Russian soul. For example, in the 1930s, the head of the Northern Department, Sir Lawrence Collier, who was pushing for an alliance between Britain and the Soviet Union. He understood the Russian mindset. He understood the Russian soul. He had no love for Bolshevism, for communism, but that's irrelevant. His argument was we should get on with each other, regardless of our political differences.

And he also understood the Russian soul and the Russian mindset, because he did not arrive. at the foreign office with baggage, namely this perception that Russians are barbarians, that Russian culture is inferior, etc, etc. So sadly, as a whole, we will not see this understanding of the Russian soul, the Russian mindset. But I assure you, even today, there are people in Whitehall who do understand Russia and who do wish to see good relations between Britain and Russia. And when the files, the archives are opened up in 20 or 30 years time, sometimes they are delayed 30 years, we will see those British diplomats who are saying very different things behind the scenes. From Tom, hey guys, family and other commitments aside, would you rather live in the UK or Russia?

I just went to Russia for the first time to see my father-in-law and seems better than in almost every aspect. Britain is my country. I am of part Anglo-Saxon heritage. I love my country. I love my people. I love my cultural and spiritual values. I was baptized as a baby in the Church of England. I was later baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church. Both mean a lot to me, but I'm very aware that these are very, very dangerous and sinister times in Britain, but I'm not going to walk away from my country, from the land of my forefathers. I will never do that. I will never submit. I will never change my stance. I believe that the British national identity, that the British people must be preserved. Britain is my home and there will never be another home for me.

Alexander? Yes, I have very, very, very similar feelings. I mean, I wasn't born in Britain. I was born in Greece and I obviously have a very, very powerful connection to Greece. And I can imagine myself one day possibly returning to Greece to retire and in my life there with my family. But I cannot imagine any situation where I would want to live in any other country than Greece or Britain. I mean, these are my homes.

These are my homelands. Greece is my fatherland, if you like. Britain is my motherland, whatever. But I can't imagine. living anywhere else. I have just been to Russia. I've discussed in various programs my impression of St. Petersburg, the fact that it is an absolutely first world city, somebody like, you know, the kind of work we do, the contrast between internet connectivity there and internet connectivity in London is shocking if we knew about it in London. I mean, you know, are you, things that

Take about an hour to upload here. Take about 90 seconds to upload there. Just to say. So it just goes to, you know, going to the point that Marcus was saying that, you know, they're not savages or inferior to us in any sense. But the point I mean, at the end of the day, I remain, I remain Greek, British. These are my homes. I don't want to go anywhere else.

Ruby Appel says, thanks, guys. The guest is very knowledgeable. and I like, and like Alexander, he makes a lot of common sense about the craziness of the British establishment against Russia. Thank you for that, Ruby Appel. And we'll do a couple of more for Dr. Papadopoulos. One second. From Flying Boar, if Britain thinks so bad of Russia, why do Russian liberals love them so much? Well, of course, when we say the word liberal today, we don't mean a classical liberal.

I am not a classical liberal, though I acknowledge there are many admirable elements in classical liberalism. But of course, in modern day Russia, Russian liberals, as I say, they are not true liberals, they wish to see Russia return to how it was during the 1990s, during the tenure of Boris Yeltsin. So many of these Russian liberals care nothing for the cultural and spiritual values of the Russian people. They are more focused on materialism, they are more focused on money making, and they don't care about Russian history.

They don't care about the Russian national identity. Indeed, you can apply that to so-called liberals in Britain. Or you can actually apply that to so-called liberals in Britain, and so-called liberals in America and in Canada, in Britain, and France, and Italy. So we should always be very mindful. When we use the word liberal, we should say so-called liberals. Or if we're right in the word liberal, we should put it in inverted commas.

Florina says Russia was also barbarian when the British establishment married the second son of Queen Victoria, Tzar Alexander the Second's daughter. Yes, that is a very, very good observation. And what we see, we see two levels at play during, let's say, the period of the British Empire and the Russian Empire. We see the profound relationship between the British royal family and the Russian royal family, which, as I said, essentially, was one royal family. Then at the next level, at the political level, involving prime ministers and other politicians, we see this distinct hostility being advocated from Whitehall and at Westminster towards Russia.

As I said, the relationship between Britain and Russia ever since the 1500s is absolutely fascinating. and on occasions, it's difficult to comprehend. But if you understand that at that time in Europe, it was run by one family, the European raw families, the situation starts to become a little more clear. But yes, what your guest just noted, yes, on the face of it, it is quite ironic. Why did they marry into a family which are barbarians?

But most of the Russian royal family were not Russian. They were, of course, German. For example, Catherine the Great was German. And after in her tenure, she is the one who introduced agricultural policies, which made Russia excellent in the agricultural sector. Well, how did she do that? She invited Germans from the German states. there was no Germany at the time, from the German states to settle in Russia, particularly along the

River Volga, not so far from Volga grad today. And those farmers taught Russian farmers in immense amount of knowledge. So that's something we need to remember that the British Royal Family and the Russian Royal Family were one family and many of the members of the Russian Royal Family were not ethnic Russian and I'm not anti-Zarist Russia. There were incredible achievements during the period of the Zars, but most of them were not ethnic Russians, especially during the period of the Romanovs. We'll do a couple of more, Marcus. Is that all right? Absolutely. Some more questions. Awesome. From Raphael. What I know is China will be the one fighting England. They want payback for the Opium War. Mao never forgave England.

for that. In my opinion, there will not be a war between China and Britain, and there will not be a war between China and America. Again, what is seen on the surface in relations between China and Britain, is very different to what's happening behind the scenes. The Chinese economic miracle is largely built upon China's trade and investment relationship with America. And you, you know, also with Britain. Therefore, it is not in the interests of the Chinese or the British for there to be for there to be a severance in that economic relationship between the two, because both countries would suffer enormously. And especially that applies to the relationship, the trade and investment relationship between America and China. But of course, in China, the Chinese government is playing

to an audience, like the British government is playing to an audience. But note how, despite all these hostile antagonistic words which have been expressed between the Americans and the Chinese and the British and the Chinese, no steps have been taken to alter. the economic relationship between those countries, because they know very well that that would be economic suicide. So there will not be a war between China and Britain, and there will not be a war between China and America. If we look just in the last few years, the economic relationship between London and Beijing has increased. Not that I'm saying the British establishments and the Americans aren't suspicious of the growing power.

of China, of course they are. Of course they see China as a rival. But again, politics is a very peculiar business. On the one hand, you can be bitter rivals with another country. Indeed, you can fight a proxy war against that country. And on the other hand, you can trade with that country and you can talk with that country. We see that happening between Britain and Russia. And we see that happening between China and Britain, although there's no proxy war being fought between the two at this time. So again, I recommend to people to be very cautious about what is said in public, even by Putin, even by Lavrov. If Putin really, really wanted to take decisive action against Britain, why doesn't he end the diplomatic relationship between the two? Because he understands politics,

level politics and high level international relations. The average person struggles to understand politics and international relations. The average person cannot comprehend at all, high level politics and high level international relations. Putin does, of course. The heart of the British establishment does, of course. So that is why on the one hand, Putin makes very hostile remarks about the British establishment or the Anglo-Saxon rod, but at the same time, he's quite content. to have diplomatic relations with this hostile Britain, and he's quite content for trade to continue between Russia and this hostile country. That's high-level politics, that's high-level international relations.

Indeed, that is realpolitik. Hitcham asks, I am interested in the dynamic of the EU countries within the EU. When it is clear, Russia has become the undisputed victor, Can the EU survive that blow? Will it break up into a smaller European Union? Well, as we know, the European Union is not Europe, and Europe is most certainly not the European Union. The European Union is one of the weapons of what I call the Western ruling elites or the globalists or the Western deep states to control Europe, to change Europe politically, socially and culturally. So the same people who are still in control in America, the same people who rule Britain, the same people who rule most of Europe, these people are the same people. They are globalists. They are the Western ruling elite. And it is only inevitable that they will, amongst other reasons, regard Russia as the enemy. And they know very well that Russia is not an enemy to Europe. Russia is an enemy to Europe. Russia is an

enemy to them, to their power, to their power base, to their depraved ideology, if we can call it an ideology, to their depraved mindset. So the European Union is in an enormous amount of trouble. I'm delighted to see patriotic and nationalist parties and movements springing up all across Europe because the ancient nations of Europe, they were. went to sleep in a manner of speaking. They did not protect their cultural and spiritual values. Now we see what is happening. Now we see the consequences of not defending your national identities, not defending your people. So people are waking up all across Europe, including in Britain, that is a direct threat to the European Union. And ultimately, it's a direct threat to the Western

ruling elites. The European Union is not a distinct entity. It is not acting on its own accord. Like NATO is not acting on its own accord, NATO in the European Union are major weapons of the Western ruling elites. The Secretary General of NATO, he's a mouthpiece of the Western ruling elites. He's a puppet, a useful idiot. He has a script which is prepared for him by senior people at the heart of the Western ruling elite, and he reads it out. So there's no attachment, no security, should be paid to any Secretary General of NATO because they're just voice boxes. Sorry, mouthpieces.

Dr. von question from locals. The British will not only continue their venomous rhetoric while Russia is in Ukraine. They will fund the Eastern Galicia and Fanderites to attack Russia as they have done since World War II. Khrushchev was unable after nearly 10 years of fighting to fully neutralize the banderites and look what happened and where we are today the banderites with their large large population of ukrainians and russia are quite capable of continuing terrorism with ukraine and russia that's from du abscondis from lomboz very pertinent observation um from 1944 to 1945 in spite of the grand alliance in spite of the

anglo-soviet treaty of may of nineteen forty two Even though the war with Nazi Germany is still ongoing, the British establishment and the Americans were helping nationalist forces in the Baltic states and nationalist forces in the westernmost part of Ukraine, eastern Galicia. That is remarkable. That is something in Whitehall in Stalin's Russia, my second book I make note of. And British diplomats were absolutely horrified upon learning that and they said that the British military will bring about the end of the grand alliance they will bring about the end of the Anglo-Soviet treaty and they could bring about a war after the war with Nazi Germany is over they could bring about a war between Britain and Russia.

So if we talk about the present day, if Russia goes into, if the Russian army advances into Eastern Galicia, then undoubtedly the assistance to the Eastern Galician's will continue. But will the Russian army advance there? One of the mistakes that Stalin made in taking in 1939 regions such as Levov was this. On the one hand, yes, it added depth to Soviet defenses, yes. But on the other hand, Stalin brought a population into the Soviet Union, which wasn't just vehemently anti-Bolshevik, it was vehemently anti-Russian, Zaris Russian, or Bolshevik Russian.

And that was a problem throughout the duration of the Soviet Union from the end of the Second Model to the end. So does the Kremlin want the populations of Livov? Ivano-Francich, Turnipal, Rivni and Volin back in the Soviet Union? I suspect not. I suspect the Russian army will advance to and capture

Venizia and the Jitami and will call it a day. And that would ensure that the southern frontier of Russia would be firmly secure. Russia would be in complete and utter control of the Black Sea. But I could be wrong.

Maybe the Russian army will advance into places like live off. But if they do, then there will be resistance amongst the East Galician fighters there. And of course, they will be receiving assistance. Here's the irony. They will be receiving assistance via Poland. And the Poles and the Eastern Galicians loathe one another. Let us not forget, during the Second World War, Eastern Galician forces fighters massacred over 80,000 ethnic Poles in volume. Poles know that. But of course, the Polish ruling elite is beholden to the Western ruling elite. So Poland isn't so independence and sovereign as Polish political

nationalist forces like to say. So there is the irony if the Russian army, if the Russian army enters Levov, then East Galician forces whose ancestors massacred over 80,000 ethnic Poles in Vollen during the Second World War, will be receiving arms from Poland. Again, politics is the most peculiar of businesses. And on that note, Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos, thank you so much for joining us on the Duran. I have Dr. Papadopoulos's links as well as his ex-execis. account link as well as his book links in the description box down below and I will add them as a pinned comment when the live stream is over. Thank you, Dr. Papadolubovas. Thank you very much. Thank you. Absolute pleasure. I finally enjoyed it. Thank you so much. Take care. Thank you. Right. Wow.

Very cool. Great guest. Absolutely. Alexander. You want to answer the rest of the questions? I think so. All right. Let's go. Daniel says, can Greece make a deal with Turkey to force them out of Cyprus? Do Greeks consider Thrace and Istanbul part of Greece? Well, I think that in terms of Istanbul and Thrace and Adrianople and all of that, I think, frankly, no one in Greece seriously believes anymore that we're going to return there. I mean, the last attempt to do so in 1922 ended in complete disaster. My grandfather was there when it happened.

I don't think there's any real hope that any of that will happen. About Cyprus, this is an incredibly complicated and difficult issue. I think Greece has never been especially helpful to the people of Cyprus. I'm going to say that. This is about my own country. I think a lot of the problems in Cyprus were caused. by mistaken policies followed by Greece, certainly that was my answer to you.

And I think that ultimately, if there's ever going to be a solution, it will have to be a solution mediated between the people of Cyprus themselves, both in southern Cyprus and in northern Cyprus, if I can say that, and ultimately the larger international community, no doubt, the Western powers, Russia,

all of those, they will no doubt play a role to. But I don't think Greece can do it by still. No. Mark Hewitt asks, how close is the U.S. to civil war? Huge question. I don't think we can classify a number of riots

yet as civil war. But certainly the tensions in the United States seem to be growing. And I have to say, I do think that this does remind me a little bit of what was happening in 2020 in the summer of 2020.

Yeah. O.G. Wall says, Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Do you, Sangeva says, nice to hear about your travels to Georgia, Alexander. I... Fascinating country.

Apparently, Armenia also has similar archaeological sites, which are amazing. Now the Turks controlling some of it, my heart bleeds for the loss. What a pity. Absolutely correct. This is absolutely true, and it was a disaster. And it is a product of disastrous foreign and domestic policy. in Armenia. And this is the interesting and extraordinary fact.

In Georgia, they've come to understand that as well. They've come to understand. It's taken them time to do, but this is an educated and sophisticated society. They've come to realize that the policies that they were following before, which was policies made for them in Washington and to some extent in London,

and Brussels was not working to their advantage. And they're now rethinking them, and you can see them doing. And it's very, very interesting and very exciting to watch. Elsa says, Russia should turn it around and go with the phrase, the UK did it. In most cases, it is correct anyway. That's for enough. Sticky Mark says, question for Alexander M. Curious to know what the opera you saw in Georgia still have that Russian gold coin for.

If you can email me with any address to post it, I almost bind it. Thanks. Please don't bin it. The opera is called Daizi, and it is composed by a composer who I'm ashamed to say. I've never heard of called. Now, his first name was Zakaria, but I can't remember, to be honest, and it's terrible to admit this. He's surname. He is George's National composer.

and it's incredible opera. It's immensely rich musically. And it takes a lot of music, musical ideas from Georgian. Well, let's not call it folk music. The music, the traditional music of Georgia. Georgia has an enormously rich musical tradition. So it is about a love triangle set in some period in medieval Georgian history. It's two soldiers who are in love with the same woman.

It ends in a duel. It ends very, very tragically. At the same time, Georgia itself is being invaded. And there's shame on the part of one of them that he's conducting this deal, even as his homeland, his Georgian homeland, is being invaded. And it's interspersed with absolutely incredible music, amazing songs, and also tremendous dance. which are woven into the fabric of the opera.

So daisy, D-A-I-S-I, you can find all about it if you go to the internet. It's incredibly interesting, and we will certainly provide you with that address. Tom says, Alexander, how do you not go crazy with Normies in the UK, who are completely indoctrinated into the MSM narrative? at pub, it's insufferable listening to the average person on the topic and staying quiet. Well, it isn't easy, but at the end of the day, one has to train oneself. And I will say this, most of the people I encounter, most of the people who come up to me and speak to me, tell me that they completely agree with the perspective that we outline here on the Durand. So there are, you know, we're not quite as isolated as I think sometimes appears to be the case.

Paul Walker says, looking forward when the UK's loss loose, how will the MSM spin it? The amount of TU96s in storage is staggering and are being upgraded to TU95 MSM. Well, there is no shortage of bombers in Russia. Just to say this again, I mean, it is a misunderstanding. but you're absolutely right about that. How are they going to spin it? I don't know. They are going to spin it.

They always find a way. They will probably blame Donald Trump. They will say that he didn't do enough. They will definitely blame Joe Biden. They already are. They're saying he didn't do enough either. They'll say that this is a winnable war and that they were betrayed and all of that. They will find some kind of argument and they will all unite around it and it will be promoted uniformly across the media.

and people in the pubs will repeat it. Ralph Steiner says, which British cities would be the primary targets for thermonuclear missile strikes in World War III? What is the British situation regarding tank divisions? Well, I'm not going to discuss, I'm not going to select targets for the Russian military in my own country.

I'm sorry to say that. I mean, London, well, London obviously is our capital, but I'm not going to start going into other things of that kind. State of our British Armoured Division is dire. Again, just go to the Strategic Defence Review that the British government has just published and you will see that it is bluntly not in a condition to conduct war.

Oh, hello? Alex. Yeah, I'm here. Oh, you're here. Okay, you were frozen brief. I was it? Okay. from Ralph Steiner.

Did Jewish control of British banking play a role? This is a misunderstanding. Britain is not being controlled by Jewish banking has not been controlled by Jewish people. I said that I was in Wiltshire recently. On a holiday, I went to the enormous palatial residence of the H-O-A-R-E, Starr's Head. They were important British bankers. They still have their own private. bank, by the way, which is Seahore and Sons, which is one of the most privileged private banks.

The same is true. The Coots family, Coots money, the Coots and the Coots Bank. Barclay's Bank was a Quaker Bank originally. And the same is true of the investment banks and the merchant banks, as they used to be called in the city of London. overwhelmingly they came from what you might call the British mercantile aristocracy that has extremely long roots and which is completely British or completely English to be to be precise fractured 0-1 thank you for that super chat Peter S thank you for that super sticker

and tsunami bomb asks what do Georgians think of Ossetia and Abkhazia, I find online maps showing that those areas are populated by non-Georgian ethnicities. Well, you will find lots of argument and dispute about this, which I'm absolutely not going to go into. There is great, I mean, this is an open wound. It's something that people deeply regret. They understand fully, by the way, that it was decisions made in Tbilisi by Sakashvili that precipitated the crisis, which meant the Georgia at least, lost control of those territories. They also understand fully that diplomatic action has to be the only way to resolve this problem. There is huge uncertainty and no agreement as to either what the

eventual outcome will be or how it will be achieved. And as I said in my last video, there is great uncertainty as to the way forward, both in Belisi and Moscow, but a sense that these two countries are now feeling their way back towards each other. Zeshaw, thank you for that super sticker. Johan Puyat, thank you for that super chat. And Ralph Steiner says, can the Anglo-Zionist

banker empire be defeated? Yes. All right, from Eric, yeah, Eric Hatchet, America pulled British chestnuts out of the fire twice. Now they want all our chestnuts in the fire. That's true enough.

We all heard what Dr. Papadopoulos said. I'm very pleased at his view, by the way, that there are people in London in the foreign office who want to maintain contacts with Russia. I'm sure he's right, but that doesn't in any way take away from the lack of sanity, as far as I'm concerned, in the way in which this whole conflict has been pursued by London ever since it started.

KFD, thank you for that super sticker. Nikos says, there's a multi-part question. This will probably be my last super chat because this situation is depressing. By losing 15 planes, Russia is on the brink of losing their status as a superpower and the image of safety and stability. Everyone is laughing at them, including China, and they are dumb enough to continue buying U.S. treasuries and allow the U.S. to print more money.

Meanwhile, Russia is becoming unsafe and unstable. You've misunderstood the leaders of Europe and the U.S. They are not idiots. They are sociopaths. They know Ukraine is lost. They want war with Russia. they can continue printing money because they own the system. They are even willing to give Ukraine nuclear weapons.

If Russia reacts, which they won't, they'll be safe in their bunkers. Their goal was always regime change, and they will achieve it by undermining Putin inside Russia. With this terror attack, Putin lost his chance for a final term to find a successor. Thus, instability. I am sorry, but we need. to acknowledge reality. Young people are mad with Putin for starting this, and older people are mad because he isn't ending it. Poor leadership will destroy Russia from the inside, and then Europe will come in and take their stuff. I am 90% correct in my predictions. People in Russia are fed up.

Russia won in Ukraine, but they'll lose their country. Well, Nikos, if I can say you're in one of your more apocalyptic moves, if I may say, I don't get, I did agree with it. any of this. First of all, you said 12 planes were lost. 15, was it 15? I don't know where you got that figure. But I don't know where you got that figure from. The Russians are saying that no plane was destroyed completely. Perhaps the most reliable figures that I have seen is that five bombers were damaged. And only one of them, those apparently, is he complete write-off.

So it's not a major blow to Russia's strategic triad, the bomber force for what it's worth is still there. But Russia has never relied principally on its bombers to maintain its strategic triad. We're talking about Tupilab 95 bombers developed in the early 1950s, as everybody who sees them, their propeller-driven aircraft. I'm not, by the way, denigrating them in any way at all. They are incredibly sophisticated and extraordinary engineering miracles of the 1950s, but they are in the process of being replaced by far more modern farmers than this. But the major Russian strategic nuclear arsenal, as the United States fully knows, is its land-based missiles, of which Russia comprehensively outmatches the United States,

the Yars and the Sarmat, and its submarine force, which the Ukrainians can't dent, and which is probably similar in capability to that of the United States. The Chinese are not laughing at this. The Chinese are selling treasury bonds. the Russians are absolutely not buying treasury bonds because they cannot say our sanctions. So they're not able to. What are they going to buy treasury bonds with? And as for printing money, the West printing money, if you read the financial pages,

which I do every day, you can start to see that there's increasing concern of a crisis in the bond markets, certainly in Britain, but even to some extent in the United States, States because there is a general perception that Western economies are now underwater. They're so indebted that they might not be financially viable in the future. So I'm afraid I didn't agree with you. I think that far too much has been made of this incident in geostrategic terms. I think it's altered the balance of the war. I don't think it's altered the military nuclear balance in any way.

the one actual effect of this incident has been to alarm some people, not everybody, but some people within the US political and military establishment because they're worried that this Ukrainian attack violates the START treaty. And apparently there's been some anger, and in fact, much of some, a lot of anger in Washington about this. You had Trump calling Putin to assure him. that America was not involved. So I think ultimately this incident, as I said, is going to be one of those incidents

that people are going to move on from, and it will be seen in the end, that it's made very little difference. Flying Boar says, I always thought Alex Mercuris and Marcus Papadopoulos are brothers. Well, there you go. There you go. From fuzzy balls, if Russia were to eliminate one target, would in the city of London, the 1.1 square mile area within London have the most impact. I just repeat again. You're talking about my country and indeed if you're talking about London,

you're talking about my home city. I really don't feel comfortable at all talking about London as a potential target in a nuclear war. I think any kind of attack of that kind, anywhere in Britain, would have a colossal impact. I pray, believe and hope that it will never have. Ralph Steiner says, Captain Blackadder, Rogared the Swahili Pygmies. Absolutely true. By the way, it's a brilliant series.

The Blackadder once got better from one series to the next. And I think the last one, the one set in the First World War, is one of the greatest pieces of British comedy ever produced. I don't know that we've ever had anything since that comes close to the quality of that program. Esdras Santos says nobody cares about genocidal values of the West.

Just don't invade our countries and leave us alone. Well, I think that if you're talking about the West and if you're talking about Britain specifically, there is a great deal of truth in what you say that ultimately we don't engage in very much self-examination about what we have done and who we are. But I think the rest of the world is starting to move on, frankly.

Bo Omega-22 says Great Stream Duran at Alex Mercuris. Well, Russia can end up in the hazelnuts. Will that satisfy them? Well, indeed, yeah. Absolutely. The hazelnats, of course, so the Ereschnics, we could very, very well see these coming. In fact, I'm sure we will. I'm sure we will start to see them being used before very long. Inside Ukraine, you mean?

Inside Ukraine, yeah. Right, okay. Alexander G. says, we want peace. We're not pretending the Trojan horses on our side anymore. True enough. Caspian Lake says, thanks for the great work. Thank you for that. Flying Boar says,

why people like Mikhail Kordokovsky, Berovsky and Abramovich are in London? Well, because they were all friends of Britain. In the case of Berizovsky, I personally believe that he was in contact all along with, well, not all along, but from a very early point with British intelligence, which was clearly protecting him, about the others I'm not going to say because I don't know as much. He died, Beresovsky, right? Oh, absolutely. He's dead. absolutely. He died quite a long time ago, having previously written apparently a long letter to Putin,

which Putin has never published, very emotional, and expressing great remorse for some of the things he had done. Just saying. Ralph Steiner says, is anything east of Calais barbarian to Britishers? East of Calais, barbarian to Britishers. Well, of course, once upon a time, the British did say that savagery began east of Calais. So the whole of Europe. I think we have evolved beyond that. But I do agree with Marcus, by the way,

Dr. Baladopoulos, that the British have never really accepted, I've never accepted that Russia is indeed an advanced modern country. It isn't something that the British seem able to grasp and I've seen so. I remember that there was a British television series that appeared quite recently,

some of which was set in Moscow. It was an absolutely bizarre Moscow, like nothing that the real city of Moscow looks like in any way. Marduk GK.O.B says the EU is run to the tune of Mel Brooks, to be or not to be, the Hitler rap. So we had an election, well, kind of sort of. before you knew it, hello, new order. Yeah, my good points. From Flying Boar, remember Litvinenko, who was poisoned in London.

British authorities said Putin did it. What's the story on that? I wrote a massive deconstruction of the Litvinenko public tribunal, which you can find in various places on the internet, consortium news in particular. I used to know that whole story absolutely backwards. I can tell you for an absolute fact that Putin did not do it. This is one where I think we can say that with confidence.

The entire premise was based on the fact that polonium could only be produced in Russia and that the polonium that was used to poison Litvinenko had been traced back to Russia. It turned out that this was not the case, that it's produced in many places, that it is relatively cheap and that it can be provided. quite easily and that it could have easily been produced in Britain. Now I can say this with, I can say this today. I couldn't say it then when I wrote that piece because he was still alive, but I personally believe that Berizovsky was probably, not definitely, probably the person who arranged Litvinenko's death because there was a very, very compelling witness who gave

evidence to the tribunal, evidence which the judge, after having hurt her, said that he found persuasive and that he believed that the person, this witness, was, you know, sincere and probably telling the truth. And I've also met this witness myself, by the way. Anyway, this witness said that Litmanenko, shortly before he died, told her that he was blackmailing a certain businessman or businessmen and it was not difficult to work out that that was Beresovsky. Flying Boers says Greeks never able to recover from two world wars. Is this the reason that it's still struggling? I think that an even greater catastrophe for Greece was the catastrophe of 1922. I don't think we've ever fully got over that.

Sparky says there's an effort to fool President Trump into thinking, his evangelical Christian supporters are pro-Israel, but it's only church leadership who receive money from Israel, not their congregations. I'm sure that's true. I don't know nothing about this to be able to discuss it in great detail. Flying Boar says Britain hostility towards Russia dates back to 1776 when Russia refused naval blockade, which resulted in U.S. independence. Is it true? Well, I think there is some truth to this. I think here I am going to take a little bit of issue. with Dr. Papadobulus. My own sense is that in the 16th and early 17th century, relations between England, remember we're talking about England,

then Britain had only really became established in the early 18th century as a single nation. Anyway, between England and Russia were fairly good. And since I have it before me, let me just quote what Shakespeare, the words Shakespeare uses, for Hermione. Hermione is a character

in the winter's tale. She's the heroine of the story. She's the Queen of Sicily. She's being, she's suspected by her husband falsely of infidelity. And eventually he tries to murder her. And she treats,

he treats her incredibly badly. And she says, the emperor of Russia was my father. Oh, that he were alive. And here beholding the flatness of my misery, yet with eyes of pity, not revenge. So she is an entirely admirable character, continues to love her husband, despite he's turning against her. She believes in compassion. She is, as I said, the heroine of the whole story.

And she comes out, and she's identified as the daughter of the emperor of Russia. and therefore is the first Russian woman in British literature, and that from a play published in England in 1623. A. Z. Mary 1 says Brits' anger towards Russia is of a person born into a wealthy family, wasted all his money on drugs toward a person who was born poor, became educated, wealthy, and cultured through hard work. There's an incredibly insightful comment altogether, actually. I will remember that one.

Ralph Steiner says, will England becoming black and Muslim be very bad? We're not there yet. Let's stick to our topics. I mean, I hope we never find our way to anything like that point. And I doubt that we will exactly. But anyway, let's stick to our topics now. Mama Alaska says U.S. is a multinational corporation disguised as an I think there is a nation of the United States, of the American people.

I mean, after all, doesn't the U.S. Constitution begin with the words we are the people, just the same. Sparky says, make Ukraine Russia again, don't leave a rump state called Ukraine, lest it remain a NATO playground, a carpetbaggers money, laundry, and the Black Rock property. If I can, I agree, but can I just also go back to what Nicos was saying? I think the events of the last two weeks, the various things that Ukraine has done over the last two weeks, have brought Ukraine much closer to that position. If they started to negotiate seriously in Istanbul, then they might indeed have preserved themselves, as we discussed in a recent program.

Instead, they've been doing all of these reckless things. They made the Americans concerned about them. Certainly they seemed to alarm Trump. The Russians have been given the Greek light now. And the Russians are saying to themselves, this country is going to remain incredibly dangerous to us if it continues to exist in any form. So, you know, I think that this was a disastrous week in the end for Ukraine.

Or at least it will come to be seen so. A-R-E-C-E, thank you for that super sticker. Jamila says, good day, gentlemen. We love to watch the morning live. And Alexander, you speak about Alex and say, my friend, my colleague, why not use only one? But I really love both. My clown world of the year is Macaron.

But we still have six months. Because he is both my colleague and my friend, and each are equally important and both should be said. And I agree about Macron. And I agree about the clown world. The clown worlds are fantastic. I'm thinking Kayakalas has the lead right now. What do you think, Alexander?

Maybe Macron. Maybe Macron. Maybe Macro. Maybe Kayakalis. Yeah. It's a shame that Annalina is not around. Not there anymore. Exactly.

She's not in the United Nations. She's at the United Nations, yeah. From Monikos, Poles say the most Russophobic country is Poland. Poland is one of the few EU countries I respect. Do Russians respect Poland despite their history? Yes, they do. And can I just also say something?

I mean, the Russians read a lot of Polish literature. So, Sinkiewicz, who is the Polish, great Polish poet, for example, is taken very, very seriously there, and always has been. And so the Russians are very aware of the Poles. My own impression of Poland, by the way, is that Poland is not the most crucifobic country.

Poles are a very, very sophisticated and complex relationship with the Russians. They're both Slav Nations. They both had many different moments in their history. There was a long period, of course, when Poland ceased to exist, with most of it controlled by Russia. and that has of course affected attitudes towards Russia in Poland. But most Poles absolutely do not want to begin a war with Russia. And I remain of the view that in time you will see Poland and Russia become friends.

So Laris says, is it Tbilisi or Tbilisi? No, it's Tbilisi. I mean, everybody calls it to be leasing. Let's see. There's no particular objection to the name Tiflis, but it's not used anymore. At least I never saw anybody use it whilst I was there. Nico says, oh yeah, you went to Georgia, Alexander. How are things there? Wikipedia says there are still protests happening. How does Georgia dream hold up? I saw them. I saw them. All the 150 people outside the parliament building,

waving American, European and Ukrainian. flags. They looked pitifully isolated. Nobody was paying any attention to them. There was only barely a policeman in sight. It actually looked rather forlorn. And I should say that in every other respect, the country looked completely stable. I traveled outside to Belisi itself. Life seemed to be going on as normal. The country is in the middle of a major economic. economic boom. And the government, I'm not going to say it was exactly, it's exactly popular, but it is very widely supported. People are going to continue to vote for it because they see it as the guarantor of stability and the guarantor of Poland, oh sorry, of Georgia's future,

future as as prosperous, independent and sovereign country. It's a very, very sophisticated place, by the way. Just to say, I mean, I went to a dinner and, you know, in the middle of all of the, you know, the recitals, the singing and the dancing that was going on, I find myself in a conversation with the person who was sitting next to me about Michael Psellos, who is a Byzantine theologian of the 11th century. And that doesn't happen to you in many countries, but it does in Georgia. Kuplex says keep up the

great work. Thank you for that. Gio Stone says, now that peace talks have failed, are we looking at another one to two years of war? What level of hope do you have for peace? Thanks. I have very little diminishing hope for peace. I don't think, you know, I mean, the

Ukrainians have been given by the Russians, the terms upon which the war can end. They are harsh, but then Ukraine has thrown away many, many opportunities to end the war in a more equitable way. Ukraine has completely rejected those terms and is not prepared to end the war for anything less than Russia's total capitulation, which is absurd. So the war will end with a complete Russian victory, there will almost certainly not be any negotiated outcome. And I don't think it's going to take two years, one at most, probably much less, and there's even some people who are saying

it will end this year. Now, I'm not going to make predictions there because I don't know, but certainly I don't get the sense that this is going to end now in any other way. And for what it's worse I also believe that the Ukrainian government's priority now is no longer to win the war or even to end the war

it is to retain control of Ukraine until the moment of the end comes Sparky says it's a necessary evil for Russia to take Western Ukraine Russia can hold referendums a few years later and give parts who don't want

to be Russia to neighboring countries. Well, I think there may be a lot of truth in that. I mean, I'm not going to predict and assess things too far into the future. What I'm going to say is this. I think there is definitely going to be all sorts of attempts to try some kind of process of destabilization inside Russia using Ukrainians to do terrible things inside Russia. Exactly the same policy that was done with people from from the Caucasus in the 2000s. I was there.

I was in Russia when some of that happened. And we now know that Western agencies were involved heavily in all of that too. It failed with the Caucasus. It's going to fail completely with Ukraine. I am increasingly getting the sense that people in Ukraine, most of them, the great majority want no part in it.

Game of Chair says, will Ukraine go after the Russian troops in Transnistria as a PR stunt and will the Russians field the Poseidon torpedoes against Ukraine's remaining ports? Good question. I don't know. About the last, I don't know, but I mean, if you're talking about the new, huge drone that the Russians are building, if they do use it, I'm absolutely sure they will not use them with nuclear warheads, which these things can indeed carry. So I'm I'm assuming that that won't happen. But about Transnistria, there's been one of the most shocking articles, as far as I'm concerned,

that the Western media has ever published, and is by David Ignatius in the Washington Post. And it straightforwardly admits that the Ukrainians had indeed been planning to attack Transnistria and to attack the Russians there. And he says that they called it off at the last moment. And he doesn't explain why. So that plan exists, was considered, came very close to being acted upon, but for some unknown reason, it wasn't acted upon.

Maybe it will be in the future. it's a very, very real possibility. David Ignatius said that one of the things Ukraine is now seriously considering looking to do is to expand the war into other countries, not just Moldova. And again, he said that without apparently being in any way concerned or troubled about the implications of that. Which are the countries? Belarus, Poland?

Romania, the Baltic states, Finland. I mean, it was just one of the most horrifying articles I have ever read. Iranian kiddo says Turkish occupation happened after the Greek junta conducted a coup in Cyprus on July 15, 1974, which lasted five days. The junta collapsed in Greece nine days later, ending a seven-year rule leading to the creation of the third Hellenic Republic. Well, there is an awful lot to say about this. And basically you have the underlying story correct. The coup, there was a coup in Greece just before the coup, some weeks before the coup in Cyprus.

And this is a coup within the coup in Greece, because there was already a military government, but then an even more hardline group of officers took over from the previous group of military officers. And they absolutely had a plan to try to overthrow the government of Cyprus. democratically elected government to Cyprus in order to draw Cyprus into Greece. And they showed no interest or understanding of what was going on in Cyprus itself, about the delicate and fragile international situation.

They behaved completely irresponsibly and entirely recklessly. And they visited upon Cyprus the disaster it's had to contend with ever since. Sparky says Israel supplied many Christian churches with I stand with Israel bumper stickers to hand out to their congregations who put them on their vehicles. They've removed the stickers, not an easy task. I can imagine. Thank you for that. Thank you for that.

Sparky. Nick, thank you for that super sticker. Bebernoch says perhaps it all began in the 9th century, one branch of the, the family setting soil for the southwest, setting sail for the southwest, the other, venturing eastward, a Norman family feud. Who knows? That's an interesting idea, actually. Rao Pinto says Russia will win. There will be no EU. Russia controls Europe and the Middle East at the end of all of this, as per my study of Catholic prophecy.

The Russians don't want to control Europe. They don't want to have anything to do with us. I mean, they will, they will, they want peace on their Western border. That is the overwhelming sentiment I got, I heard when I was in Russia. I believe it is the one that the Kremlin also hands. Do Abscondes says the best option is for Russia to take Lavov, neutralize the bandarites, and then hand the rebel back to Poland on the condition that they don't enter the fight. Well, we can come up with all kinds of scenarios and possibilities. I think at the moment, the thinking of the Kremlin is about how to destroy the Ukrainian army and end the war.

And I think once they've done that and have secured the Black Sea coastline, I think that they will start to think more seriously about these future options. My sense is that for the moment, the general view in Moscow is still to try and preserve some kind of Ukraine with a friendly government in Kiev. But that might not be practical. From one sec, from Iranian kiddo, ancient Greece didn't directly rule over Thrace despite having colonies where Ottomans lost all of Thrace to Bulgaria in 1912. In 1913, Turks recaptured Eastern Thrace as Russia withdrew aid. to Bulgaria for attacking Macedonia. There's a huge story here. I'm not going to get into the very complex story of the Balkan Wars, if I can say, but about Thrace, ancient Thrace, of course the Thracian people were profoundly

different and yes, you're absolutely right. But of course, Thrace, ancient Thrace, was much bigger than modern Thrace. It included Bulgaria, for example. Boa Omega says the Duran is on Locals. Please join us there. Very true. We are on locals. The durand.locals.com. And from locals, Ruby Pell says,

I was very interested in what Dr. Popol Doppel said about the resistance in Galicia. Do you think the Poles will help them fight Russia if Russia gets there? We are too far away from that event. be able to say for certain. Now, what I'm going to say, I say with absolutely no pleasure, in fact, I think this is a terrible possibility, but I think if ever we get to a situation where the Russian army reaches Galicia, what we are very, very likely to see is massive refugee movements heading westwards. That's not something I want to see. I can't abide the idea of people leaving their homes and their native lands behind.

But I suspect that that is precisely what is going to happen. And when that happens, then other problems and issues that people speculate and worry about suddenly begin to lose their relevance. Iranian kiddo says Western Thrace was awarded to Greece after World War I, and Bulgaria was effectively cut off from the Aegean Sea. True. Now, look, as I said, this story, the history of the Balkans and the Balkan Wars is very, very complicated. What I will say today is that the area that you call Western Thrace, which of course includes the city of Thessaloniki, is completely Greek. If you go there, it is an entire, in fact, it is not just a Greek region. It is an intensely Greek region.

Yeah. Trustee Rusty Keith says, The genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain is an important book on this topic, published in 1950 by Harvard University Press. I'm reading it. Okay. Nikos says, you missed my point about the undermining of Putin's leadership and poor successor. I don't think people want to hear this. regime change and poor leadership in Russia will happen. I hope I am wrong.

Well, I've just seen the opinion polls in Russia that just came out, by the way, the day before yesterday, after the attack. there. Putin's popularity has grown. He's now well over to 80% again. I think that, again, I think that this is something that people outside Russia constantly speculate and talk about. When I went to Russia, again, about two weeks ago, and I was there in St. Petersburg, only for a limited time. But my sense was that support for Putin is absolutely overwhelming. And including amongst the various civilian lawyers that I met, these were perhaps not his most obvious constituency at one time. I think they feel that he's led Russia very, very well and very, very skillfully

through a very, very difficult and complex period. And that's the overwhelming sentiment that people have there. I think, as I said, that he's as politically stronger than he has ever been. That's my own sense. Lola Renee, thank you for that super chat. Kevin TK. says Ukraine is hitting military assets in Russia more frequently lately. They recently hit an electronics factory in Chuvashia. Any thoughts?

No, I don't agree with this, actually. I think that the point is that Ukrainians always talk up the success of their operations. And I think then this is all reported and recirculated. Throughout the media in the West, and it all looks very dramatic. And sometimes you have pictures of plumes of smoke and explosions and things of that kind. But then you take a step back and you analyze it. And you discover it doesn't really mean anything. It's difficult to convey to people who haven't been there.

huge place Russia is and, you know, hitting an electronics factory in one place and doing a small amount of damage to it, and I'm sure the damage was small. He's not going to affect anything. It's not going to impact on Russian society to any very great extent. The Russians can just plow on and get through this. It's like, you know, one of those enormous, you know, lorries with these colossal engines you can throw things at it and just come on driving forward. Fractured 0-1 says Tsarist Russian courts spoke French for a long time which promoted English suspicion. The official language of the Russian court was French but as people have now come to realize actually the language that the Russian nobles and aristocracy and the court actually spoke

to each other in was Russian. It was never French. I mean, they were all fluent in French because, of course, this was the language of, you know, intellectuals and all of that. And as I said, the official language of the court, not of the government, was French, but everybody spoke all the time in Russian to each other. The one exception were Nicholas and Alexandra. Alexander spoke perfect, fluent Russian eventually. But she was brought up in England. So her first language was English. And Nicholas and Alexandra spoke to each other in English.

And they corresponded to each other in English as well. Fractured Zero One says, Are we going to see an upgrade in the SMO, in your opinion, Alex? Yes. In fact, I'm going to tell you something. I would not be surprised if quietly this has already happened. Fuzzy Ball says, Is the Bank of England and its connections the real driving force behind Project Ukraine

and all these other fronts like Macron and Stammer a charade? No, I don't think so. I think the Bank of England is a rather exhausted institution that has very, very little influence on foreign policy anymore. That is not true of the entire financial and banking sector in the UK. I mean, there are still people of very, very great influence there. but they are not to be found in the Bank of England, which is not the force that it was, say, 50, 60, 80 years ago.

I get to say something which is controversial. I think the bank, the city of London, the financial sector in Britain, is in deep eclipse at the moment. I mean, it's losing relevance within the international financial system. It's been well overtaken in scale. by other financial centres around the world. It is still important, but nowhere near as important as it was. And that reflects the overall reality of the decline in Britain.

Marky says most interesting place for hazelnuts is that new big NATO base in Romania, especially since Romania's bogus elections. I want to do, yeah. Again, I don't want to pick targets, but if things get, out of control. Yeah. Iranian kiddo says as someone who's been to

neighboring Armenia, Yerevan is absolutely beautiful. If you go out to the countryside, it's still very Soviet. Unfortunately, they lost territories to Turkey in 1920 amidst Russian Revolution. They lost territories to Turkey

then, and they've lost more territories to Azerbaijan now. Now, you know, absolutely, agreed. I've never been to, I've never been to Yerevan. I'm told that Yerevan is incredibly beautiful. DiBelisi is a beautiful city too, by the way, just saying. Sparky says Putin is a righteous man. Many Westerners think he is not because of 25 years of relentless Western propaganda,

which includes false flags. There is a complete difference between the actual real Putin at the West. and caricature. The two have nothing in common except the name. Ralph Steiner says the spider's web, Britain's second empire. Doco. Raphael says, I still believe that after Ukraine bombarded the field with the bombers in it, they went to talk to Putin and told him you fight or we remove you. Who would have said this to Putin? I mean, who would? have said such a thing to Putin. My own personal view is that within the system, the political

system in Moscow, there is always argument and discussion. It goes on all the time. I think that Putin has always reflected the predominant consensus within the Russian leadership, which, of course, he himself plays a key role in shaping, but that I think that in every step he takes. He's extremely careful to have a solid consensus of elite support behind him. Marcos 588 says, imagine Italy without Rome, Japan without Tokyo, or Russia without Moscow. And I imagine the Hellenes without Constantinople, the love torn from a nation. The heart. Well, it is something that Greeks obviously remember and will never forget.

Studio Rainer says, is Zelensky behind the Eleanor? riots did the U.S. get to the curse? That's a very good point. Perhaps. Anand Kalerisian, thank you for that super sticker. Fuzzy Ball says Kaya Kalas' grandparents were actually exiled for being Nazi sympathizers, which explains her sympathy for Ukrainians. Her ascension is expected.

I'm not very familiar with Kayakalas. It's a family history, but I understand it's very complicated. Some of them were apparently And others were communists I was going to say And actually very senior Very senior officials apparently Within the Estonian Communist Party

Just to say Very privileged, very senior yeah That's what I've heard, I don't know Studio Rainer says I have a theory that the conflict Has been overly exaggerated by Zelensky To make more money I really wouldn't be surprised

If Zelensky was a Russian agent He scanned the US more than Israel If he's a Russian agent then all I can say is that somebody needs to be talking to the people in Russia because they have created for themselves a total Frankenstein. I don't believe that Zeletsky is a Russian agent. I believe that he's using this whole conflict in order to privilege himself and certain people within the Ukrainian elites.

In other words, exactly like Alex has said many times, I think it's a grift, And I think it's a grift that they are absolutely determined to continue. And we'll succeed in doing, by the way. Marcus 588 says Yarmouk, Hilska, Manzikert, 12-204, 1453, 1463, 1461, 500 years of Ottoman oppression, 1923, World War II and Civil War. It's a miracle that Greece still stands at all. Completely true. And I get to say it, I think it's entirely due to the strength of all.

our national spirit and our devotion to our culture, and I will say also to our church, to our Orthodox church. Harry C. Smith says, that was the institution that survived through all those dark times. True. Harry C. Smith says at the start of the SMO, we learned max 150,000 Russian troops can be sent outside the Russian Federation. After four regions joined the Russian Federation, in October 2022, this ceased to matter, but may become an issue again, soon legally, requiring an upgrade to a CTO. I think what you say is true of the Russia of 2022. I mean, Putin has talked about this, but I think the Russia of today is a far stronger military power than it was then. I mean,

it's a fact that people don't understand, I think, was that the old trend throughout Putin, period had been to modernize the armed forces, to improve the armed forces, but also to some extent to downscale them. Now things have gone in exactly the opposite direction. So it's a much more powerful, much stronger military force than it was. And they now have a very ambitious plan, which I don't know the details of, because it hasn't been published, to upgrade the sides of the Russian Navy. And apparently it's just been signed off by Putin. And that, of course, might make power projection much more a possibility than we've seen previously whatever happened to the US military who fled Nigeria to Cote d'Ivre are they going to attack Burkina Faso now that

Wagner has left will Cote d'Ivri escape neo-colonialism like their neighbors Cot d'Ivoire is very much as I understand it's still under the thumb of France that is probably the last place that will break away from France though maybe one day soon it will. What the Americans are going to do, I have no idea. But if they start getting, messing themselves in places like West Africa, Burkina Faso, and all of the rest, I think that they will find that they're going into places where they're not welcome. And that there will be enormous problems for them there.

Nico says, Alex, did you see Durov on Tucker? This guy is such a soya boy Tucker had to point out the redoubt. of France's actions, which he excused the country that sucked Africa dry respects human rights. Well, I didn't see it. I haven't watched it. I have read accounts of this interview, and they do seem very, very interesting. I mean, what they basically show, as far as I can see, is the Diorov's arrest, which is a shakedown. I mean, that was basically all it was.

nebulous charges used to arrest him and basically to carry out a shakedown. I can't imagine he's going back to France again, by the way. Marcus 588 says the Germans in World War II would have killed for a chance for peace without unconditional surrender, which primarily drove their Raquel Latrins. Kiev are fools. Well, they are fools. But if I can say the German leader himself, Hitler, did not want any kind of surrender. all. What it probably did was that it reinforced his authority within Germany.

Sparky says, was the Dutch East India Company an example of an NGO long ago? Yeah. I mean, I don't know its whole history, but maybe. But it was also a very aggressive commercial enterprise as well. From Studio Rainer, I don't know why, but I can't imagine every time they sent Ukraine money, Zelensky gave half to Russia while they pretend to fight. It's certainly isn't impossible. Never underestimate Western incompetence. How does he give the money to Russia? I mean, this is a question. I mean, I simply don't know. I've not heard that before. From Rafael, the eye in bricks going to be for Indonesia.

Well, Briggs. Fuzzy Ball says, wouldn't it be in Russia's best interest to take the Carpathian Mountains to connect to Hungary and Slovakia? give them an avenue to exit the EU and NATO. Well, it might be. As I said, again, we're drawing lines in maps when we haven't yet reached those places on those maps. Or at least the Russians happen. So when they get there, we will see. Studio Rainer says, did the Greeks create the Torah to confuse the early Christian movement?

There is a lot of evidence that the Greeks created the myth of the Jews. Well, I can't believe that. The Torah is originally Hebrew. So I mean, I can't really see how it can possibly have been created by the Greeks. I mean, protections of the Torah are actually very, very old. From Samuel Moroni, from a European perspective, would you prefer stick to NATO under the US hegemony or an independent EU army without any particular military hegemon?

The idea of an EU army is a foolish nightmare, which will never be properly realized. The EU was already pretty awful, as it already is. My own personal view is this. I think NATO and the EU are two sides of the same coin. When one goes, so will the other. Sparky says in 1492, the Ottoman Empire sent ships to rescue Jews from the Spanish Inquisition. Contrary to popular belief, Jews and Muslims have not been fighting for thousands of years.

That's true. Miko says, I raised my concerns, Duran. I hope I am wrong and Putin gets a final term. I'll take a break now for a while because my depression is back. I thank you for tolerating me. Be well, my fellow Greeks. Of course, be well. And do get over your melancholy, if I could put it that way.

As I said, to repeat again, my own sense when I was in Russia is that Putin's authority is pretty strong. And as I said, the events of the last two weeks have actually increased it. Studio Rainer says, were the protocols of the elders of Zion British propaganda? The British are the only ones that have a ton of old documents that are still sealed? No, they're not British propaganda. They are forgeries that were fabricated in Russia. And again, it's a complex story. I think I know, I think I have fairly shrewd,

idea who it was who forged them. But again, it's a topic for another day. EVV says, in your opinion, where does Switzerland stand? NATO. I mean, it's become completely assimilated as far as I can see into the collective West. It enforces EU sanctions. It supports NATO policies. It supplies weapons, which find their way ultimately to Ukraine despite the various denials. So I think it's absolutely now part of the collective West. Not the Swiss people who remain deeply committed

to Switzerland's historic neutrality, but the political class in Switzerland has a different agenda altogether. Studio Rainer says, I wish people would stop wanting Russia to use big bombs to show strong. Putin does not run the military. It's a traditional war, not PR war. Well, indeed.

And I mean, I think that you're absolutely correct. And I'm going to say something. I mean, being a very, very strong country is being a very, very disciplined country, not letting yourself be thrown off balance by unexpected things, which, of course, always happen in war. Iranian kiddo says Tiflis is the person,

pronunciation for Tbilisi. It was changed by Stalin in 1936. Eastern Georgia and Tbilisi were an autonomous region of Iran for three centuries. It was annexed by Paul I in 1801. The king was removed and it was absorbed into Russia. You're absolutely correct on every point and thank you for your explanation and clarification. Thank you for that. Fuzzy Ball says if something happened to Putin, Medvedev would be far more lethal and less patient. towards Ukraine. True enough. Studio Rainer says,

was Tucker Carlson serious about Ukraine arming cartels? The Mexican president's rhetoric has been basically threatening war. I don't know about this.

I mean, if the Mexican cartels have been getting weapons from Ukraine, that would not surprise me. Whether Zelensky has had any role in that. I rather doubt

because I can't imagine that even someone as unbalanced as he would do something like that, but then you never know. Polly says, hi, Duran. Could you invite J.M. Burlingame for an interview? He has an interesting look on the ongoing events. Thank you very much.

Oh, interesting. Okay. Yeah, we'll reach out to Birling, J.M. Burling game. Thank you for that. Studio Rainer says, I want a Greek wife. Okay. Elza says, gentlemen, could you give a brief summary of the financial crisis in Greece a decade plus ago? I still hear arrogant comments from my German colleagues, even if the German economy is self-deweeding. Well, it's a massive and very complex story and would take a long time to describe.

But very, very briefly, Greece joined the Euro because the Brussels, the people in Brussels, wanted it to. They were very, very keen on Greece to join. I know that because my father, who had contacts in Brussels, and including in the Commission, was one of the many people from Greece going to Brussels and telling them

that Greece was not remotely ready to join the Euro and that it made no sense for them to do so. And they completely ignored what he was saying and told him in clear as terms that as far as they were concerned it was essential to complete europe the greece joined the euro and it was greece did join the euro and that made it possible for all sorts of people in greece and i'm not going to discuss which people to start borrowing at very low interest in euros and of course that created an economic boom and the economic boom had

completely unstable foundations. And then there was the larger financial crisis that engulfed the world in 2008. And eventually that brought the entire boom, the bubble, if you like, in Greece, which was affected by a great deal of corruption. It caused that bubble to burst. But the key thing to say is that, yes, Greeks were major players in that bubble and they were many some of them were corrupt too so were a lot of other people from outside especially from Germany I mean Alex can provide a lot more details about this than I can

but an awful lot of people in Europe made an awful lot of money out of what happened in Greece yep they did big German company I made a lot of money. Trustee Rusty Keith said, Russophobia in the Western world. A brief case history by GE Wheeler is available online, originally published in Asian Affairs Magazine. Well worth reading.

Great show, guys. Cheers from Canada. Thanks. Thank you for that reference. And Studio Rainer says, was it the Khazars, the Germans? How can you not say who forged it? That's a big mystery.

Stalin almost destroyed Israel, by the way. Zionism is Western. I'm not going to say because, again, this is very controversial, and I'm not sure that this is true. But my own personal view is that it was a certain Russian intellectual, not somebody I'm sure anybody here has ever heard of. But it was the first person who published it. Alexander, I think that is everything. Your final thoughts as I do a final check. The topic of British-Russian relations is one that will continue and develop.

And I get to say, I personally, as a Greek living in Britain, have a great deal of bafflement about it, because I absolutely accept what Marcus was saying about the British, have this enormous sense of superiority over the Russians. But the obvious synergies between Russia and Britain are so clear to me that I have never understood why the British cannot see them themselves and can't embrace the opportunities for partnership that are there.

And where I would disagree with Marcus a little is that I don't get the sense that there has been the same, antagonism to Britain in Russia that there has been to Russia in Britain. Again, seeing the enormous number of adaptations of British books and novels that you get in Russia, you know, film adaptations, shows a great affection and interest in British things. If anybody can ever track them down, you can find them on YouTube. just go and see some of the Russian adaptations of Sherlock's home stores, for example. Studio Rainer says the Brits created the protocols of the elders of Zion to subvert Orthodox Christianity.

It explains Stalin's purges all and Churchill was left with Zionism. Stalin was based. No, I don't agree with that. Well, I mean, I don't agree with that. I mean, I'm not an authority on this topic, but I have read a book. the information I've got from a book written in the United States, a study of the Okraanka, the Russian secret police of that time, which concluded that it was absolutely not the Okraanka that forged the protocols,

that it was not any person within the intelligence world altogether, British, Russian, or anyone like that, that it was an intellectual, who did it basically as a joke. Polly says tomorrow the 11th till the 15th of June, the Bilderbergs, meet in the Grand Hotel in Stockholm, Sweden. Interesting. Iranian kiddo says, well, we'd love to be a fly. I wonder what they're going to discuss.

Iranian kiddo says Janis Varufakis made the economic situation worse in Greece. Not just him. Just a Cipras did too, as I was saying at the time, as I was saying at very, very great length of the time and as I very well remember. And finally, oh, no, not finally. Studio Rainer says, final question, where to find a Greek wife? Greece. Greece. Elza says, thank you, gentlemen.

It's not the same without your live shows. Alexander, I hope we see you on locals. tomorrow. Thank you. Will you absolutely will. Now let's just remind everybody, 1400 hours Eastern time, EDT, 1900 hours London time on locals. I'll be doing my live stream then. All right. Thank you to everyone that watched us on Odyssey, on Rock Finn, Rumble and YouTube, and of course, the durand.com. Definitely. join locals to see Alexander's live stream tomorrow. And thank you to our moderators as well.

To Sariel and to Peter. And who else was moderating in Brett and Harry? And I think that's those were the moderators for today. So thank you to our moderators, Alexander. So let's get back to work. Indeed. videos to do. Yes, let me see. Wait, one second.

Alexander. One more. One more super chat came in from Harry. For 200 plus years, the British Navy made its sales from Russian hemp. So British Empire could never have existed without either Russia or the cannabis plant. This is absolutely true. Completely correct. It's absolutely blind.

And on that note, we will end the live stream. Thank you, Harry, for that. Take care, everybody. Thank you.