The Duran Podcast - Control the money flow in Ukraine

Episode Date: December 10, 2025

Control the money flow in Ukraine

All right, Alexander, let's talk about what is going on in Ukraine. Bugatti's, Alexander Bugatti, that is what Donald Trump Jr. talked about in Doha, his holiday in Monaco with his girlfriend, and he said that he saw a lot of Bugatti's. He said in Monaco with Ukrainian license plates. Tucker Carlson is now also talking about Bugatti's and Ukrainian corruption. The message cuts through. Gold toilets, Bugatti. People are starting to. to actually visualize now the corruption and it definitely hurts the Zelensky regime. It definitely hurts the Europeans. It hurts the neocons. It makes getting money to these regimes a lot more difficult. But the money is still flowing. Sweden's giving money to Ukraine. I believe the UK is giving

some more money to Ukraine. Even the United States, the Pentagon has said that they're going to give 800 million to Ukraine over the next two years. So you have all the corruption. You even have the son of the president of the United States talking about the corruption in a very public forum, but the money is still flowing. It's less than what it was a year or two ago, but it's still flowing. And you still have these corruption cases developing against Zelensky and his top officials. Yermak looks like he's ready to Bolt. But Umadov is also implicated in all of this, and he's the chief negotiator. Yeah. So where are we with what's going on in Ukraine with the diplomacy, with the corruption scandals? We had a phone call, by the way, between Whitkoff and Zelensky. And we also have a trip

for Zelensky to London, where he's going to meet with the big three merch smockron and Stommer. And according to Bloomberg, they're going to convince him to reject the territorial concessions that Whitkoff and Kushner are trying to get them to accept leaving Donbass, basically. Yeah, there is a huge amount of diplomatic activity, which is, in my opinion, going around in a circle because we have exactly the same problem that we always have had. The Europeans do not want to end the war in any conceivable way that could be seen as ending the war on Russian terms. discussed this in many places, they would prefer a defeat in Ukraine, an outright defeat in Ukraine to a situation where the Americans and the Russians come to terms with each other,

and a settlement is imposed on Ukraine and on Europe, which could leave the Europeans facing what would be a clear-cut defeat, but also which would result in the Russians being basically back with a role in European affairs. So they're doing everything they possibly can to derail the entire push such as it is from the United States for a peaceful resolution of this conflict. So they they meet Zelensky, they tell him, resist, oppose any plan, any proposal from the Americans for territorial concessions. Stick to your position. No Ukrainian withdrawal from Donbass. Stick to your position about Ukraine territorial integrity, all of those things. Stick to your position about Ukraine ultimately joining NATO. All of these are proposals,

which of course the Europeans know the Russians are going to reject. The Russians have already rejected them many times, multiple times. But these are spoilers. And Zalel himself, of course, is going with what the Europeans want, because most of the money now, not all of it, some of it still comes to the US, but most of it now comes from Europe. And he has an interest in keeping the money flow going, because that is the only thing, in my opinion, that is keeping him in power now. My own take on this corruption scandal in Kiev is that it is all about. gaining control of the money flow as it flows into Ukraine. I think that this more than anything

else is what is driving it. So Zelensky has to keep the flow of money going and he also needs to keep that money going to the people that he supports and who support him. So he's going to go along with the Europeans. He's had a very difficult conversation, lasted two hours apparently with Wick golf. Trump is unhappy about the call. He said that he was disappointed. He said that he wonders whether Zelensky has even read the plan, such as it is, which of course he has done. But, you know, that that tells us that Zelensky is, you know, digging in his heels. Note that Trump doesn't want to speak to Zelensky himself any longer. He's had the experience of talking to Zelensky in February, which ended up with the bust up in the Oval Office, then Trump wanted

to avoid clearly a similar event taking place. So he went along with what Zelensky was demanding in August after the Anchorage summit meeting with Putin, which meant walking back all that had been agreed between Trump and Putin in Anchorage. Then he did the same again in, I think it was October when Zelensky came to Washington and spoke to Trump directly after Trump had spoken to Putin. And Trump apparently told Putin, I'm going to get Zelensky to agree to these territorial concessions and all of those things. And instead, what happened was that Trump, after another difficult meeting, ended up agreeing with Zelensky that, you know, go back to the Kellogg Plan have the ceasefire, the unconditional ceasefire on the existing conflict lines.

Well, Trump has now moved beyond that again, but he now realizes it's a bad idea for him to speak to Zelensky. So he gets Witkoff to take the calls instead. The calls go badly wrong. They're not leading anywhere. But Trump cannot get past this immovable obstacle, which is Zelensky, in Kiev. And not just Zelensky in Kiev, but as we've discussed in many places, the entire political class in Kiev.

And he cannot get past the Europeans who are supporting Zelensky in all of this obstruction. And so this diplomacy just goes round and round in circles and leads nowhere. And the corruption scandal, of course, continues to rumble in Kiev. the Europeans are unhappy, apparently, about this corruption. They're telling everybody in Kiev, cool down. We don't want trouble. We don't want to see Zelensky under real political pressure. We don't want to see the regime unraveled, not because they're afraid, I think,

that anybody who replaces Zelensky is going to be more willing to, you know, willing, to negotiate with the Russians, but because they're worried that it will all collapse. If it has to be someone else, and, you know, they're already preparing for that eventuality, they are lining up Zolluzni to take over that role. But Zalusini, judging by that article that somebody wrote for him in the Daily Telegraph, as you pointed out, is going to follow exactly the same message as the one. that Zelensky is following. So, you know, this whole negotiation is going round in circles. And in the meantime, the Russians watch and wait. They say, let's have a proper negotiation.

Let's have proper negotiating teams. There's no sign of anything like that being set up on the American side and on the front lines, the Russians keep in fancy. That's where we are. It goes in circles because the diplomacy is fake. I mean, maybe fake is a strong word, but it's not genuine. If the United States really wanted a resolution in Ukraine, it could tell the Europeans and the Zelensky, the Zelensky regime, that this is what they want and they're going to do it. I mean, the United States pretty much controls Europe, can definitely impose.

its will on the European leaders, UK, Stommer, France, Macron, and Germany, Mertz. There's no doubt the United States can impose their will on these three countries. And when it comes to Ukraine, the United States pretty much controls Ukraine from top to bottom. Whether it's the intel agencies, whether it's a physical presence in Kiev, the United States has a huge, a huge footprint in Kiev, a huge footprint in Ukraine. The military's run out of, the military command is run out of Germany with the United States controlling all of that. The money flows. The United States controls that. NATO money flows. The United States controls the NATO and the NATO weapons and money flows as well. So, I mean, if the Trump administration really wanted to get to some sort of a resolution in Ukraine

genuinely wanted to wind this thing down, they could do it the snap of a finger. So what is really going on here? That's my question. I think that's the million dollar question. What is really going on here? And no doubt the Russians know this. So what's happening here? Well, this is actually the single most important question about the whole diplomacy up to now, because you're absolutely right. If the United States wanted to end the war in Ukraine or wanted to negotiate an end of the war with the Russians bilaterally, there is nothing that's stops it doing so. I mean, obviously, Biden made all kinds of promises in Ukraine to Ukraine in the past, and then the United States makes lots of promises to all sorts of people, and it doesn't always feel that it has any obligation to honor them. In my opinion,

it should not honor these block promises, because the way in which this war has been conducted shows that those promises that were made to Zelensky to Ukraine have ended up disastrous, both for the United States and for Ukraine. So I think... And that was Biden. Absolutely. And that was Biden. It was Biden. Previous administration.

Exactly. So this is a proxy war between the United States and Russia. Everybody knows that. The administration knows that. There is no reason why the United States and Russia should not talk to each other about anything they choose. I mean, there is no principle of international law, no conception of international law, no conception of international law that denies two great nations from negotiating and talking to each other on any topic. And given that this is a proxy war between the two of them, absolutely, they can agree to settle it.

And if the United States decides with Russia that the Russians can retain control of Dompass and indeed Zaporosia and Herson, that Ukraine has an army of 80,000 men, that absolutely the Americans can come to that kind of understanding. standing with the Russians and come along and tell the Europeans and the Ukrainians, this is what we've agreed with the Russians. You may not like it, but you're going to have to lump it. If you don't like it, we're going to switch off the intelligence. You can deal with the Russians all by yourself. We're not going to supply you with any weapons. We're not going to supply it with any information. You can fight on and see how well you do by yourself. And everybody knows

that in that case, Ukraine would quickly collapse. Everybody knows this. So absolutely, with the Europeans, with the Ukrainians, the United States is in that position. So why doesn't it do it? I mean, that is the really big question. Now, there are a lot of theories here. One theory is that this is a charade intended to fool the Russians.

And this is an absolutely understandable point of view and one that has a lot of merit to it. Because Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 were charades that actually did fool the Russians. So this could be the same, an attempt to treat the Russians into stopping their advance in Ukraine and to fool them into thinking that, This is all for real and that if they agree to this peace settlement, then all will be well. And of course, in reality, the United States has its own objectives, which continue to be expansion of NATO into Ukraine, the establishment of European forces in Ukraine, NATO forces in Ukraine, ultimately American forces in Ukraine, despite what Kellogg has just said, no boots,

no American boots on the ground, and all of that. So that is a perfectly acceptable view to have. The major problem I have with it is, firstly, that the Russians have made it absolutely clear now, ever since January and beyond, that they're not going to be fooled. I mean, it's not as they're showing any sign of being deceived or tricked into agreeing to a proposal, to this sort of proposal in that kind of way, to making the kind of concessions to the Americans that would make this a successful deception. And that means that the Americans are unable to complete the process of the negotiation with the Russians. And again, if it really was like that, if it really was this kind of cunning deception,

why all of these rouse with the Europeans in that case? Why would the Europeans not be supporting this process instead of trying to undermine it? Now, I understand again, people will say, well, this is all part of the theatre and it's part of the deception. I have to say, if you are as plugged in to what is going on in Europe, what has been said in European capitals, what European officials are saying to each other, you would know that their anger and their fury about these American proposals is absolutely real. They hate them. They are not part of any game of deception. And all I would say is that people who think otherwise are simply wrong about this. So I think that I am against the theory that this is a deception operation.

The view that I personally have is that Washington is a very complicated place. the wider public in the United States clearly wants a non-interventionist foreign policy. That is Donald Trump's instinct. That is also the instinct of people, some people in the Pentagon, in the administration as well. They understand that the war in Ukraine is lost. They're trying to put together. some kind of peace package that will satisfy the Russians and end the war before the final disaster comes. But they're finding it impossible to do that because the Europeans are opposed,

the deep state in Washington is opposed, the entire bureaucracy is opposed, the media is opposed, and ultimately they run into these obstacles and into this situation where they can't ultimately bring it together all the time. It seems to me that that is a much more realistic understanding of where we are. It's chaos and inability to enforce policy, which is not so unusual or surprising if you work. in government, as I have done, rather than a much more thought-through sinister policy, as some people imagine. So that's my own personal take on this. The Americans cannot deliver because they are themselves divided, that the president and some of the people around him have understandings of what is needed to end the war, but that the bureaucracy in the United States vigorously

opposes it and is in alliance with the Europeans and won't let this policy, won't let it be seen through. So that's where it is. And I think that if you go back to Donald Trump Jr. and his comments in Doha, he basically also said, maybe the time has come for a to walk away. We've been saying all along that, you know, this has been a huge mistake by the administration trying to sort out this diplomatic tangle. Far better to leave this thing alone and to let it take care of itself and not waste time with complicated and intricate negotiations, which ultimately are going to lead that way. And as a doctor, Donald Trump Jr. seemed to concede that that might be the right way forward.

Right. A diplomatic tangle that Donald Trump Jr. did not mention was of their own doing. Absolutely. Going back to Obama, then going back to Trump's first term, and then going to Biden, and then going to Trump's first year. Yes. Where Trump decided to take the side of Keith Kellogg and escalate and believe that he could deliver a defeat to Putin and to Russia. That's what Trump decided to do. Yes. Yes.

And he ran into a wall. And that wall is the Russian military and Russian diplomacy. And now it seems to me, listening to you, that the real negotiations, the real diplomacy, if you want to call them that, is happening not with Russia, but it's happening within the United States government. Yes. How do we please the neocons and the deep state while at the same time saving face? from the Ukraine collapse, trying to prevent a Ukraine collapse in order to save face because we don't want another Afghanistan type of collapse. So how do we do this? How do we freeze the conflict?

How do we please the deep state? How do we please the neocons? How do we avoid a collapse and get out of this situation? Well, that is exactly what is happening. I mean, the real debate is in Washington, by the way it often is in wars. I mean, if you go back to Vietnam, it was exactly the same. Then, I mean, after the Tet Offensive in particular, there was a massive debate that went on in the United States, which went on for years as various people tried to maneuver and to try to find ways to extricate the United States from what was at that time spoken about, you know, as a morass that the United States had got itself into. and to find ways to extricate itself from it.

And by the way, the same story about the United States have been being lured in by others into this mess that it in fact deliberately chosen for itself. Anyway, that same narrative was being circulated at that time as I can remember. Anyway, I don't think it can be done. I think ultimately the president in the end will always find that the opposition to a policy of ending the war on what would have to be

Russian terms is always going to be too strong. And I have long since come to the view that if you're talking about the Europeans and you're talking about Zelensky and anybody who might conceivably replace Zelensky, Zollosini, for example, from their point of view, from their perspective of their own personal interests, a military defeat and collapse is preferable to a negotiated settlement between the Americans of the Russians. So that is probably where we're, in fact, I'm saying not just probably, almost certainly where in the end we're going. A military collapse means that the grift can continue for the weapons industries, for the NGOs for the money, the government in exile. It benefits the globalists and the establishment

in Europe, in the United States, the neocons, in Ukraine as well. The Zelensky regime, it benefits all of them to have the collapse. And then just to move the business, pick up the business from Kiev and move it elsewhere, move it to London, move it to Paris, move it to Miami, whatever. Exactly. And it keeps the bureaucracies in Brussels, NATO and the EU. still going because now they've got the, they can say, look, the bear is on the prowl. It's reached, the, it's reached our eastern border. So please, the United States, stay here because we need you to stay here to give us your weapons and also your money. And the money continues and NATO continues because if you don't, if you actually leave, the bear will continue to prowl.

and it will prowl westward. So this is, I think, what is going on. This is wide, by the way. We have all of this paranoid talk about the Russians. At the moment Ukraine is down, they're going to move on to the next country, you know, Boldover or the Baltic states or Romania or Bulgaria or whatever. It's ultimately about keeping this strategy of tension with the Russian. with the Russians going, ongoing, because it serves the interests now of the entire European

political class, the Ukrainian political class, and very, very significant sections of the American political class also, because exactly as you said, it keeps the grift going. Yeah. Okay, we'll end the video there, the durand.com. on X Rumble Telegram and also Substack. So you will find those links in the description box down below. Take care.