The Duran Podcast - CNN admits; Gas station Russia crushing US & Europe in ammo production

Episode Date: March 12, 2024

CNN admits; Gas station Russia crushing US & Europe in ammo production

All right, Alexander, let's do an update on what is happening in Ukraine. Let's start with the front lines. And I think we have to talk about what is happening with the tanks, the Abrams. We have to talk about the Patriots and basically how Russia is is destroying a lot of the Ukraine-NATO hardware. And we have not seen to date any video or photo evidence of the S-U-34s, which Ukraine claims to have shot down. So what do you think is the real situation as to what's happening on the ground in Ukraine? Right.

Well, we are getting reports all the time of Russian advances in all sorts of places. So in the north there's a place called Terni, a village, which is apparently now important village on an important river in the north, which the Russians are in the process of recapturing. There's a very big battle going on for control of another town, Fortress town, called Krasnogovka, close to Donetsk, city. It's the last big fortified position the Ukrainians have close to Donnet City, from which they show Donnet City. That's a big battle. In some ways, it looks like the biggest battle since Avdavka. There's also fighting going on in other places further south, and there continues to be fighting near Avdegka itself.

I mean, if you remember, last time I think we talked about these things, Sierski, the new Ukrainian overall command. He launched a counterattack in this area. He's been piling troops and men to try and hold back the Russians in the area around Abderfka. Every day we get reports of huge Ukrainian losses there. Ukraine is gradually losing ground. And again, it's attrition. But the big story is exactly the one you said. The Russians are on a hunt destroying Western equipment in Ukraine.

they've destroyed perhaps three, some people say four, Patriot missile systems in various places around Ukraine. Over the last couple of weeks, two Patriot missile systems just two or three days ago, near a town called Pakrovsk, not so far from Afdeiakir itself, and we've got film of this. They destroyed three Haimars launch systems. in the space of a single day this also has happened over the course of the last week they've destroyed three caesar howitzers how it's a specialized how it's supplied by france and of course they've now

knocked out for abram's tanks so i mean they are systematically destroying the western equipment that has been supplied to ukraine by the western powers at such enormous cost all these systems, these expensive weapon systems that Ukraine got, the Russians are destroyed. And this is becoming so systematic and methodical that I can't overthink that this is turning into a deliberate policy. What the Russians are doing is that they're showing to the Americans and they're shown to the Europeans. Look, you go on sending expensive equipment to Ukraine like this, all that will happen is that we will destroy it and we will destroy it fast. Now, I've seen figures for the cost of some of these systems which have been destroyed.

According to some reports, the total cost, the price of the Patriot Systems, the Russians have destroyed. This is over the course of the last month, comes to around $20 billion. dollars so you get a sense of you know the amount of equipment that is being thrown away and this comes after i saw a report that every time the west or germany sends equipment to ukraine eventually sooner or later they have to replace it but costs in defense procurement are rising all the time So if you send a patriot system to Ukraine and that patriot system gets destroyed and you order a new patriot system for yourself, that new patriot system will cost double. What the one you sent to Ukraine has cost. I mean, I'm saying that, perhaps I'm overstating things, but it's a constant inflation of costs.

and J.D. Vance, U.S. Senator, is becoming concerned about this, and he's asking the administration now to provide more precise figures about the true cost to the United States of this commitment. So a major systematic campaign by the Russians to destroy all of this Western equipment, because that's not the only things that the Russians are destroying. they've destroyed a whole large number of S300 air defense systems. These are Soviet legacy systems that Ukraine had been provided by the, inherited from the Soviet Union. They've been destroyed as well.

There's still Leopard 2 tanks, Bradley's also being destroyed. And the other thing the Russians have been doing, and I don't think anybody's, commented about this, is that they've been going on a hunt for Ukrainian FPV operators. These are the operators who guide the drones, which Kamikaze drones, which the Ukrainians have been trying to use to slow down the Russians. And again, over the last week, I've seen at least four instances of the Russians homing in and are on particular basis used by, Ukrainian FPV drone operators and destroying them as well. So what we're seeing is the Russians systematically demolishing, you know, key elements of the Ukrainian armed forces, but also

signaling to the West, I think, that, you know, you're just throwing away money in Ukraine if you continue to arm it in the way you're doing. Okay, so let's, um, discuss ammunition since we're on the topic of weapons because this is a story that broke from CNN the other day, an exclusive story from CNN, where basically they are reporting that Russia is outproducing the United States and Europe by three times, three X. And I believe CNN said that, and they were interviewing various military officials and NATO officials and CNN in their reporting, they said that by the end of 2025, even with all the ramp up of the United States in getting their ammunition production going, they will still only

get to about half, a little less than half of what Russia is producing today in terms of ammunition. So obviously CNN is assuming that as the U.S. is ramping up, Russia is just going to stay static in their ammunition production. And by the end of 2025, then the optimistic scenarios that the U.S. could get to maybe half of what Russia is producing. They could produce half of what Russia is producing every month and every year. I believe the number was 250,000 is what they said Russia is producing on a monthly basis. And they said that the United States, by the end of thousand and 25 could optimistic and under an optimistic scenario can get to 100,000, 100,000 plus. So, so we have to talk about this because we've been saying this for a long time.

You've been saying this for a long time. You've been focusing on the ammunition. This channel's been focusing on ammunition. Brian Burlettick at the New Atlas has been focusing on ammunition. And it looks like CNN has finally caught up to our reporting. As you discuss this story, I just want to also. throw something at you. Why do you believe CNN was allowed to publish this article?

That kind of has me a bit curious. I'll just say the cynical side of me, the reason could be that maybe, maybe the U.S. is using this to to underestimate to try and give lower figures. And in the background, they're actually producing a lot more. So maybe they're trying to throw the Russians off. Anyway, just a thought that I had.

But explain all of this news about the ammunition. On the subject of the United States producing many more shells than its reporting, that I think is true, but not to a very significant. degree. Now, I've had a report, a very detailed report from somebody who is very familiar with the situation in the United States at the moment about US production of ammunition. Now, unfortunately, I can't get into the details of this because doing so might reveal things about this person. But basically, the US is claiming at the moment that they're making around 28,000 shells a month. This person estimates that they're really making around 34,000 shells a month.

If we look at longer term trajectories, then he thinks that the US will eventually at the end of 2025 arrive at essentially the same point that CNN is saying. So they are perhaps, producing rather more than they're saying at the moment, but it's not by a huge number. The other thing this person has said is that the US has catastrophically depleted its arsenals of ammunition, and especially, it seems, in the Indo-Pacific region. They basically took everything they had from the Marines, the US military, all the forward positions in the Pacific. and gave them to Ukraine. So a lot of that extra production,

perhaps even most of it, will have to go to replacing US arsenals. So they're increasing production. There is far less certainty. There's a lot, much more uncertainty as to what it is exactly that the Europeans are doing. Some are saying that Europeans are producing a lot less than the Americans.

Others are saying that Ryan Mattel, the German industrial group, is actually outproducing the Americans. I don't believe that I'm a tough is outproducing the Americans. I think if it was, we would know about it. And I don't believe that that's the case. So I think roughly these figures are with, you know, of Western production of ammunition, are reasonably right. Well, I also have to say, though, is that I think,

think that the figures for Russian ammunition production are probably too low. Again, the same person who's been unpicking the American figures, some way back said to me that the three million shells Russia was producing a year has by now already increased to about four million. which again, for various reasons, I think is probably about right. So they're losing the ammunition war. But in some ways, and this is another thing to say here, this is actually a less consequence in terms of what's going on on the battlefronts, then would have been the case in say, 2022, 2023,

because Ukraine is using a lot less ammunition on the battlefronts. But actually, so is Russia. So Russia is using five times more ammunition than Ukraine is using on any particular day. The Ukrainians are using less ammunition than they did than they had, even that they're used to because they have less. The Russians probably are using less ammunition for a particular reason. and that is because they've diversified their strike weapons. So it looks like they've got many more ballistic missiles that they did. But the other big change from earlier on in the war is that they're now using many, many more precision guided bombs.

So they're dropping around 100 bombs a day. These are sometimes enormous bombs. one 1,500 kilo bomb can do far more damage than hundreds of shells fired against the same location. If all of this is correct and Russian shell production is as big as we're being led to believe,

it is likely that the Russians are stockpiling shells. And that is different from what the world, West is doing, and it begs a lot of questions. Are they stockpiling shells? Because they're worried that they might have to take on NATO in Ukraine, or is it that they're stockpiling shells in preparation for some big offensive that they might launch, say, in the summer of this year or sometime next year? We'll just have to wait and see. But one way or the other, it does look as if the Russians are for the moment well ahead of the West in shell production. And that is astonishing. Maybe both. Maybe they're stockpiling in preparation for NATO, but they're also stockpiling for an offensive. Yes, probably.

That's exactly what they're probably doing the same with missiles, by the way. I mean, they've been launching fewer missiles. And again, I think the reason for that is not difficult to understand, because with so many air defense assets across Ukraine destroyed, And this has been a long-running story now going on for several months. It's the last few weeks, we've seen a, the last month, we've seen a particular concentration on destroying a Western-supplied air defense assets. But bear in mind, Ukraine is estimated to have lost, you know, around 15% of its air defense assets in one day in that single strike that took place

against those two Patriot missile systems in Pakrovsk, and the Russians also apparently destroyed an S-300 missile system in the same strike. So the Russians don't have to use so many missiles anymore. They can launch ordinary cheap drones in huge numbers, and they can stockpile missiles, because there's less, there are fewer air defence assets now to shoot down the drones. And that means that the Russians can stop pile missiles.

And again, the question is, what for? To support an offensive or to deter and counter NATO? As you say, probably both. Yeah, the interesting part about the CNN article is that they basically say that this war is going to be one on ammunition, on artillery, on shells. and then the production of artillery. And if that's the basis as to how this war is going to be won, according to CNN, well, I mean, the conclusion is obvious. Ukraine cannot win.

Absolutely. To win. Bear in mind that every single. Why is one further point about every single shell that Russia produces, it can use against Ukraine. The United States and NATO are not in. that condition, because the United States, as we know, is involved in many wars in all kinds of places. It's got to think about China. It's got to think about the Middle East. It's got to

replace its own arsenal. So if the Russians are producing three million shells, they can use all of those shells. They've got big stockbiles already. They can use all of those shells in Ukraine. The United States cannot. And that's a fundamental difference. I just go back to my initial question to you. Why would CNN be allowed to publish this type of article? I mean, when the narrative for the last year and a half has been Russia's running out of ammunition, Russia's running out of missiles, Russia's running out of tanks, Russia's running out of air, Russia's running out of everything. And now all of a sudden, out of the blue, CNN publishes an exclusive, which is, you know, Russia is not only out producing the United States, but they're out producing the entirety of the collective West. and this war is going to be one or lost on the basis of ammunition, according to CNN. So here's the situation.

Just why are they publishing this article now? Is this only for CNN, for the permanent state to say, you know, here's the situation. Don't tell us we weren't being honest with you guys are transparent. Here it is. You know, it's very interesting. And by the way, there's been another article, not on weapons reduction exactly, but by the economist, our old friends, ultra neocon newspaper. Russian economy is resilient and healthy. Inflation's coming down.

Inflation was the big worry last year, but apparently it's now under control and is starting to fall and the economy is still continuing to grow. So the economic war has definitely failed. And that's coming out in the economist as well. the economist widely read, of course, in the United States by the political leaders there. Why are all of these articles appearing? Why was that article that we discussed, you know, two or three weeks ago in New York Times about, you know, the intelligence bases in Ukraine all published? Why is all this going on?

Now, I have to say this. I think what is happening is that there's been a decision made by someone in the United States, probably not but definitely not Biden Biden's not able to make these decisions not Sullivan not Blinken not that crowd but somewhere within the permanent state there's been a decision this has gone far enough we can't really go on investing in this any further

we've got to draw a line these articles are attempts I think to alert the informed US public in other words, the political class that the time has come to start winding down project Ukraine. And we saw Newland resigning

so-called last week, another straw in the wind. And, you know, this wouldn't be the first time the United States walking away from a problem saying to the Europeans, look, it's your problem now. We're not going to be there to the extent that we were previously. So we publicised this business about the shells. We admit to the fact that we can't keep up with the Russians in shell production. We're going to lose this battle for shells, which, as you correctly say, means on our own analysis, that the Russians are going to win.

We've ruled out sending our own troops to Ukraine. That was done so categorically, by the way, in the State of the Union address that I think it would be very difficult politically to turn around and change that. So I think gradually we're walking away from this problem. And I think the Russians have sensed it. And I think they're driving the point home by going after the Abrams and the Patriots and all of those things, telling the US again, look, this is a bad investment. You're good capitalists. you understand the lost costs fallacy.

So, you know, don't go on investing in this project, which is already found. Yeah, makes sense. J.D. Vance or Rand Paul, they can see the CNN article and they could use it to once again, say, look, there's no reason to send $61 billion to Ukraine because, obviously, we're losing. We're not going to catch up in ammunition production, and we are going to lose this conflict. so let's stop it now. So this definitely is going to help the arguments of people like J.D. Vance or Rand Paul, who are against the $61 billion to Project Ukraine. A final question. Since we're

talking about weapons, let's finish off the video talking about the Taurus missiles. And Ola Schultz, he once again said that there will be no tourist missiles in Ukraine. Actually, I don't know if this is a slip up, or if he's saying this intentionally, but once again, he threw it out there that look, these missiles, they have to be operated by German troops. That would be German troops in Ukraine. We can't trust Ukrainians to operate these missiles because they may fire these missiles to places that we don't want them to fire them towards. And so that would mean we have to have German troops on the ground in Ukraine. And he's like, no, this is a no-go. And I say it could be an intentional type of slip up a jab at the UK because, you know, Schultz saying that tourist missiles need German soldiers

in Ukraine, you could draw the line and say, well, wouldn't that mean that Storm Shadow missiles need UK soldiers and scalp missiles need French soldiers? Anyway, I'm just kind of throwing that out there. But Schultz made it clear. No tourist missiles in Ukraine. But we have David Cameron, the foreign secretary coming out with his plan of which Annalina Berbach endorses, which is, as Annalina 360 put it, a circular exchange. The UK gets the tourists. According to Cameron, his plan, the UK then sends the storm shadows to Ukraine. Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, this is such an extraordinary story. The thing to you want to say straight away is that, of course, Cameron comes up with this. I mean, bizarre plan. I mean, it is absolutely bizarre. I mean, you know, assuming that the Russians are stupid, that they don't understand what's really going on, and that the German people are, you know, stupid also, and that they really weren't mind if tourist missiles are sent to Britain, which then surprised them to Germany, to, sorry, to Ukraine, and in return, Britain gives storm shadows to Germany. I mean, it's, of course, we come along, and we have Annalina Behrbach, who is, who is, you, is this ultra hardline person.

And she comes along and says, what a good idea. Let's see whether we can move forward with this. She is always within Germany, the extreme hardline hawk. But within hours of that, we get Boris Pistorius, the German defense minister, saying, no, we're not going to do this thing. And then, of course, we get a further statement from Schultz himself. So we're not supplying terrorist missiles to Ukraine. We're not doing it directly.

And we are not doing it indirectly either. And that this decision is final. That is what he said. So he's drawing the strongest red line against this that he has drawn up to this point. Now, you know, he's crossed those red lines before. perhaps he will again but again I sort of get a sense

that the mood in Germany is shifting it's shifted amongst the public quite a long time ago probably most Germans now of police a plurality of them believe that Russia is going to win the war so I mean that's the first thing to say

but beyond that I think the military and the political class are also aware that Ukraine is going to lose the war. And I think they were badly spooked by the release of that recording of the German generals talking with each other about Germany, German soldiers operating tourist missiles and the tourist missiles being used to strike at the Kerch Bridge and Russian ammunition dumps and Karsindar region and that kind of thing.

And I think that the consensus has now developed within a part at least of the German political leadership. That this is just too dangerous and it's going too far. So I think that for the moment at least they're backing off this. And I get the sense that on this occasion, Birbock is isolated and even most of the Greens don't really support it. Remember, the German Parliament has twice voted against a supply of tourist missiles to Ukraine. So, again, it's the same story, really. The Germans very keen on supporting Ukraine last year, giving Ukraine everything that Ukraine was asking for.

They gave Ukraine the leopard two tanks. They've seen the leopard two. tanks go up in smoke, you know, apparently more than half of them have now been knocked out. It's been very, very bad. Picture, the optics for Germany have been very bad, and there's hearing stories that the Ukrainians don't like and aren't impressed by the leopard to. and they see Ukraine going down and they say enough's enough

we can't go on doing this again the sunk cost fallacy is not one we're going to fool for there are still it must be said plenty of advocates of further commitment by Germany to Ukraine Behrbach is one

some parts of the German media also built Saitung for example constantly pressing for stronger and stronger commitments to Ukraine. But I think the general mood in Germany is that they're shifting away from this enterprise. It hasn't worked out. Germany is in recession. The Russian economy remained strong.

Nothing has worked out as they expected that it would. And more and more people in Germany are saying, The Americans are having doubts and it's time for us to do the same. Yeah, we'll discuss this in a separate video, in a dedicated video, talking about Europe and NATO's involvement in Ukraine and Macron's, all of Macron's statements with regards to Ukraine. But since you're on the subject of Germany, a very quick question. Maybe Macron's escalatory rhetoric with regards to Ukraine is a way. way for Macron to really stick it to Germany, to present himself as the hardline leader, the guy that stood up to Russia and Putin, knowing that there will be no troop commitment into Ukraine.

But, you know, I was a guy that called for more weapons and more troops and to go full-on war with Russia, Germany in its weak state, in its weekend state. they decided to backtrack. So France is now the top dog in Europe. Germany is diminished. Germany is a fading power. And here I am, a little Napoleon Jupiter. We'll discuss this in a dedicated video.

We'll go deeper into this. But what are your initial thoughts? I mean, briefly, I agree with that. One of the reasons. One of the other. I absolutely. I mean, bear in mind that Macron doesn't get on with Schultz. I get the impression that Macron doesn't get on with any of the German leaders.

They hate each of you. of. But I mean, he didn't, he wasn't, he wasn't on easy terms with Merkel before. I mean, he's always resented German leadership in Europe. And of course, as you absolutely rightly say, this is his way of sticking it to the Germans, which has, of course, made his relations with the Germans even worse. It's a foolish game that Macron's play. But you can see that the Germans are getting irritated. Again, Pistorius, the defence minister, who, is in German terms very much a hawk. I mean, he's very much wanted to support Ukraine. He sent Ukraine lots and lots and lots of weapons. Anyway, even Pistorius said, look, this talk about sending

troops to Ukraine, NATO, EU troops to Ukraine. It's irresponsible and he must stop. He actually said that. All right. We will leave it there. The durand. Dot locals.com. We are on Rumble Odyssey, Bichute, Telegram, and Rock Finn, and go to the Duran shop. And Alexander, we have a limited edition, St. Patrick's Day shirts. Wow. The shop right now running. So check out the link down below in the description box and pick up a very cool St. Patrick's Day shirt. All right.

We will end the video there. Take care.