The Duran Podcast - Crisis creation and authoritarian solution. Globalists prepare for Munich

Episode Date: February 11, 2026

Crisis creation and authoritarian solution. Globalists prepare for Munich

All right, Alexander, it is that time of year that is approaching. I'm talking about a Munich Security Conference, which is going to take place on the 13th to the 15th. I'm going to get a lot of good clown world material from that conference, but we're going to have a lot of good material to talk about. Probably a lot of disturbing material to discuss, a lot of speeches and statements. from the collective West elite. And this is coming at a time when you have Russia winning the war. And I don't think anyone would dispute that, though. Perhaps Kyakalus would dispute that.

But no sane or a rational person would dispute the trajectory of the conflict in Ukraine. You have the whole row, the fight between Trump and the Europeans, allegedly, this fight between Trump and the Europeans. And of course, you have the Epstein documents as well, kind of floating in the background. You also have Macron, who is now openly trying to position himself as the European negotiator with Russia. So what are you expecting for the Munich Security Conference? Well, indeed, because the Munich Security Conference has generally been the more important event, there's Davos, which has always been, there's always been more of an entertainment side to Davos,

and I think people realize, I mean, they all come together, they all agree with each other, they all have done up to now, they all talk about what a wonderful thing, globalisation is, they have all their working parties in which they advance their plans for globalisation. But then basically the same group of people meet a few weeks later in Munich, and then they talk security, That's where the more kinetic aspect of their plans tends to come. And of course, there's been two extraordinary Munich security conferences over the last few years. There was the one in 2022, which I have never forgotten, where, as I said, they were all in a state of absolute excitement. I'd say even intoxication.

Ecstasy is not, I think, too strong a word, about the prospect of a conflict with Russia and the enormous sanctions that they were going to impose on the Russians, and there was all the expectations that Russia was going to implode within a few weeks. I think I've heard stories that they thought that by June, I'm not stories, I mean, they are facts that they expected that by June it would all be over, that Putin would be gone, that there'd be a new government in Russia. I understand they'd even decided on some of the people who were going to take over, just a second.

So, I mean, that was the Munich Security Conference of 2022. And as I said, the exuberance was just off the scale at that time. And then the other one, which is, of course, the diametric opposite was the Security Conference, the Munich Security Conference that took place last year, where J.D. Vance and others came, and J.D. Vance criticized the Europeans for the way in which they were treating human money. issues and suppressing free speech, and he criticised the way in which the Romanian election had been cancelled, and there was an absolute shock and fury and a sense that the Americans were criticising the Europeans in ways that, of course, the Europeans had not expected.

They didn't expect the Americans coming along and talking to them in that way. And I remember that some senior American official, it might have been exit, but it probably wasn't actually. But anyway, some American officials said to the Europeans, you do understand that the United States cannot be in Europe forever. And they were absolutely shocked and horrified about that all over again. So we've just had Davos. We've had the battle over Greenland in Davos. We had the meeting between Mark Ruta and Donald Trump, in which Mark Ruta went over the heads of the Danes and promised Trump significant American sovereignty over Davos. We discussed all of that.

There's been absolutely no movement forward on any of that at all. I mean, there's been no negotiations. There's been no discussions. I personally think that Trump does actually want to get Greenland, or at least he would probably settle for what Mark Routte offered him. But I still think he's interested in Greenland. And so what does he do? Just before the start of the Munich Security Conference, he again upsets the Europeans, he meets some of them, shows them a map in which Venezuela and Greenland are part of the United States. I would not be surprised if at the Munich Security Conference we see the Americans coming up and bringing up Greenland all over again.

And one of the reasons. That map, by the way, just to clarify, that was the photo from when the Europeans came to the Oval Office. He was the principal and they were the schoolchildren. So he played around with the map with the US, Canada, and his way of the Greenland. Exactly. He had that photo, yeah. Exactly. So I'm going to make a guess that we're going to see all of this revive once more. There's going to be tensions. There's going to be anger. There's going to be all of this. Partly the reason the Americans want to do that is because the negotiations to end the Ukraine war are not going anywhere. I think the statements that the Russians have been making. Lavaov have been making has been making that clear. As you rightly said, the war in Ukraine is being lost. and the Americans don't want to be involved in something that's visibly failing.

I don't think there's anything more elaborate about it than that. So there's going to be those tensions. But the other thing to understand is that the Europeans themselves come to Munich in a much weaker position than they were in last year. The economies of Europe have continued their actually very rapid decline. Mertz managed to get an upward tick upwards in his popularity in the autumn. I'm not sure why, by the way, but he did. It is now declining once more.

There's more pressure in Germany as a result, probably, on the IFDA. There's attempts to prevent parliamentarians, German MPs in the IFDA becoming MPs. The situation in France is that Macron is now universally seen around the world as a lame duck. He's not really able to get a proper and effective government organized in Paris. His latest idea in order to gain fame and celebrity and importance before he finally gives up the presidency is to be appointed chief negotiator with Russia. He's just given an interview to the German media, say how important it is that we speak to the Russians who are our neighbors. Of course, at no point does he actually say that we need to speak to them because we're losing the wall. That isn't what he's prepared to do.

But he says, you know, we've got to do it. We can't leave it to the Americans. We don't really trust the Americans anymore. So we must do it ourselves and who better to do it than me. But the problems in France get worse and worse in Britain. And it's important to say the British are again going to be there at the Munich Security Conference. This is a security conference. So it's not an EU meeting, but the British will be there.

Quite plausibly, Stama is going to go because Stama wants to put as much distance between himself and London as he can at the moment. because of the enormous crisis that he's facing, which we've discussed in a recent program. So the British will be there. They, of course, are in a terrible situation altogether. And in Spain, they've just lost, Sanchez, socialists have just done disastrously or this very badly in a regional election in Aragon, where the right came decisively ahead. So all of these leaders are in great problems, facing many, many problems. As I said, the economies are not going well, but they have to confront the Americans.

I don't think they've got a real plan about how to address the Americans, and they are losing in Ukraine. So Europe looks like it's in a very, very bad state indeed. Worst state than it was this time last year. Which means that Europe is going to double and triple and quadruple down on more centralization. Actually, we're even getting reports saying that Ursula is planning various meetings in order to talk about more EU centralization because she says that's the only way forward now because Europe is so weak, because the member states are so weak, the only way to solve this, according to her is to centralize more power into the hands of Brussels.

So, I mean, that's the plan. And you have the fast-tracking of Ukraine into the EU. A kind of fast-tracking, a partial entry of Ukraine into the EU. So they're going to change the requirements of how it. country joins the European Union. In essence, what there's going to say to Ukraine is that you can become a member of the EU right away, but you fulfill the requirements afterwards. So instead of fulfilling the requirements and then becoming a member, now it's you're a member, and then we're going to deal with all of the other various requirements. So they're switching everything up now.

Yes. Well, we see this, we see the European Union doing this all the time. We've had this last year in December, if you remember, they changed the rules about the Russian frozen assets. They used emergency powers intended to be used to deal with economic problems in order to make the freezing of the Russian assets in Euraclear permanent. Then they did the same in January, where they imposed a complete ban on imports of Russian oil and gas into the EU. And again, they changed the rules. They said that this must be done using trade legislation. So it's not sanctions anymore. It's a trade decision. So it can be done through majority votes. And now they're going to try and fast track Ukraine into the European Union

using, again, by bending and changing the rules. So you can see that the EU, as it becomes, as the pressure on it grows, it's not just arrogating more and more power, which it is, by the way, and becoming increasingly centralist in exactly the way that you said, but it's tearing up its own rulebook, and it's increasingly behaving, as if the rules don't matter, and that it's brass sauce, that makes the decision. And for the moment, despite the fact that maths and Ursula, at a person, level, don't get on. Meuts is backing this drive. It would not be possible if the Germans were opposed to it.

Now, this particular plan of fast-tracking Ukraine into the EU is said to be very controversial. Some of the member states are unhappy, probably France, probably Italy. It might not work out, but the pressure to do it is absolutely there. And we'll see whether it works and how it works and what it means. Of course, it won't make any difference in Ukraine. It won't change the realities and the dynamics of the war. But it will, in fact, complicate further any negotiation process, which is what it's designed to do. Yeah, exactly.

Well, the theme of the Munich Security Council is that there are no more rules. It's all about the powerful. whichever countries or blocks are powerful, they're the ones that make up the rules. And so basically the argument for the EU is that they have to become another center of power to counter China, to counter the United States. And that's why they need the more centralization. You know, the weaker member states means more power or diverting more power into the hands of Brussels. Maybe that was the plan all along. To be honest, I'm starting to think, yeah,

that was what this is all about. Everyone always asked the questions, and I always wonder, why would the EU hollow out its member states in such a manner? Why would they blow up Northrop? What would they allow Gilligan and the professor and the adornmentized, illusionally, to blow up Nord Stream? Why would they just allow this to happen? Why would they allow their economies to collapse and crumble in the way that they are? Because ultimately, it does lead to, to more more centralization and power in the hands of Brussels. I mean, maybe Ursula doesn't know this, or maybe Kyakalus doesn't understand this, but I mean, the orders that they're getting appear to be just that.

Just stay the course. Don't worry about Germany's economy. Don't worry about France's economy. Don't worry about Nord Stream. Keep the sanctions going. And eventually, we're going to tell you to centralize everything more into the hands of Brussels. I don't think there is any doubt about this at all.

And by the way, in Ursula's case, I have absolutely no doubt at all that she knows exactly what she's doing. I mean, she may not be the sharpest knife in the draw, but she does understand all of this very, very well. I think it was Jean Monnet, one of the creators of the European Union, or what became the European Union back in the 50s, who said that the way to constantly keep the European project moving forward is to take advice. of every crisis. So you basically create crisis and then you take advantage of it and then you argue always for further and further centralisation to deal with the same crisis that you have created. Now, of course, the key thing to understand here is that none of this places priority on the welfare of the people of Europe. Centralization and centralization has been driven a

incredibly fast since the late 1990s, when it really began to take off in a big way when they first started talking about the euro. Centralization has not brought prosperity to the people of Europe. It has, on the contrary, reduced economic vitality in Europe. It has lowered growth rates. It has increased poverty. It has deepened cost of living crisis. It has created de-industrialization in Germany.

It has also put the European Union in a situation where it is in conflict with all of the major powers. The United States, to a certain degree, Russia, of course, to a disastrous degree. China, it's also in conflict with all of the countries that make up the EU. They might have different perspectives. or the people in them might have different perspectives, they might say, well, it's actually in our interests to have good relations with China. Italy, for example, probably would say that because Italy at one time had a very good burgeoning relationship with China.

But all of that must be sacrificed in order to push forward with this process of integration and centralisation and uniformity. across the entire territory of the Union, which is being imposed. And on this point, we have made the point many, many times that Brussels does not like strong governments. It does not like strong leaders heading national governments. It likes weak leaders, weak governments who will always do what Brussels tells them. Now, they're very busy at the moment, trying to interfere in the Hungarian election, and the word is that the pressure there is enormous. And we've now had more reports about the elections in Romania, the ones that were cancelled in 2024. Some of these reports, by the way, have come out in the United States, where they still remain deeply, well, some people that remain skeptical about that whole process. We could see how absolutely flimsy.

the case for canceling the elections was how it cut through again all the rules and all the principles and how it was basically engineered once again to produce the outcome that the European Union wanted. And we've seen the same thing happen in Moldova and we're going to start to see this increasingly happen in the member states as well. I think the EU figured it out to be quite honest as far as the centralization of power and the fear that they could be voted out. The member state leaders could be voted out if things are not going well in a member state country. They figured it out.

You just cancel elections until you get your guy in place that you want. Right? I mean, it's that simple. They started this experiment way back in 2008, 2009, with the whole pigs, the Portugal, Ireland, Greece. Spain crisis. And that's where I think the leaders of the EU, all of these globalists, they figured out that, you know what, we can destroy economies of our member states. We can go straight into their bank accounts and take the money.

And nothing's going to really happen. And even if you get to a point, for example, in Romania, where you do have some, someone coming out of the blue like Georgia Esko, who they did not expect to be the favorite to win. And this is not your guy. Well, you can cancel that election. And you know what? Nothing's going to happen. And even if you have a leader like Macron with a popularity of 11 percent, he's not going to get voted out.

Nothing's going to happen. So I think they realized this. And if Aevde really starts to get powerful and we see them as a threat, we'll figure out a way to cancel them as well. Well, so their only real big problem right now, I think it's two, twofold, is FITZO. And, you know, we saw what happened to FIETO a couple of years ago. And their big problem is Arbonne, but they're working on that. And you have elections in April. And the EU is going to do everything in their power to make sure that they remove Orban.

Absolutely. They're pulling every lever and every stall. That is exactly correct. And that is what it has become. but to repeat again, if Europe is in a critically weak position in the world, which it is unequivocally. It is because the European Union itself has made it so. Once upon a time, not so long ago, when it was a Europe of nation states, people like Adonauer and de Gaulle and Margaret Thatcher were important figures in the world.

At that time, all of the European economies were growing strongly. And in many ways, people were even saying at that time that there was a convergence between Europe and the United States, and I can remember there was a time in the 90s when it was widely expected that European living standards would surpass those in the United States. Everything has gone backwards, even as this EU project has been increasingly and relentlessly imposed. And despite that, they say that more of the same medicine that is killing the patient is what the patient needs in order to make him well. More centralisation, more control, more regulation, more EU law, more decisions by EU courts in preference to national

courts and obviously more involvement by the EU in the domestic internal affairs of countries, running the legal systems there, running obviously the monetary and financial policies of these states, doing all of these things, even as, as I said, the whole situation deteriorates. Now, the question is, how bad does the situation in Europe have to become before this changes? Whatever one may think, sooner or later, probably later rather than sooner, it will have to change, but how much damage is going to be done in the process? I think we're far off from anything changing. I always take the points of Greece and Cyprus. Leo.

I cannot imagine any country outside of the EU allowing their leaders to destroy the livelihoods of their citizens in such a way. And to still have the very citizens remain committed to the project. I mean, the EU did it. And there was no, there was no repercussions at all. There was no price that had to be paid. Sure, you swapped in one globalist government for another globalist government. I think that's the point. There's no, there are no options.

And when people think that they're actually voting in some sort of change, I mean, they're really not. And I think we saw that throughout the whole 2008, 2009, 10 crisis. Well, the most extreme example of this is Germany. I mean, Germany is going through a period of a process of deindustrialization. This is universally recognized. It is also becoming increasingly recognized that Marx's policies are not going to reverse that. In fact, they're going to intensify it. That is why his popularity is sinking.

But there is no strong movement in Germany, not even the IFTA. that even considers the possibility of a break with the EU. Well, there's some polls which say that the Germans are actually in support of continuing the escalation against Russia. Absolutely, yes. I mean, they still want to continue provoking and escalating a conflict with Russia. Yes. Yes.

It's incredible. They still haven't understood that the reason they're in this mess is because of the position that they took against Russia. They haven't understood that. Or at least from the polls that I've seen. there is a slight majority around 54% that still want to escalate something with Russia. Yeah. Russia. Absolutely. I mean, this isn't universal in Germany.

No, I'm saying what the poll. I think it was a build poll just to clarify it. But you do still have this critical mass of people in Germany who certainly support the ongoing policies. But beyond that, even if there are some people in Germany who can say, We must find some way back with the Russians. And there are people in Germany who are increasingly saying this. I mean, Gerhard Schroeder, the former chancellor, has come back. He's written a massive 5,000-word piece saying that Germany's economic model is broken,

that in order to put things together, it needs to repair its relations with Russia again. Apparently, this commentary is gaining some traction. I am not suggesting in any way that it's going to result in a reversal of direction. I'm also hearing reports that in Moscow now the hotels are filled with European businessmen and American businessmen too, by the way, who are trying to see whether there is some way back as well. The point is, even if there are some people who say this, we must get back. together with the Russians. We must talk to the Russians again. They still say that we must remain in the EU. There is no challenge to the EU itself, the EU structures, or the direction of

integration that the EU is taking Europe and Germany. You can find people in Germany who will criticize policy towards Russia, but who will remain fervidly supportive of the EU and what they think it stands for. And unless that changes, nothing is going to change. I mean, one of the mysteries to me is why these people aren't able to make the connection that, and put aside your de-industrialization and all of this, why they can't make the connection, that one of the reasons that relations with Russia, which they now acknowledge, must be improved, are so bad, is because of Germany's EU membership and of the policies that the EU itself is hardwired to follow.

Well, they can't make that connection because of their hatred for Russia and for Russians. Well, also, it's the Russophobia. I mean, that's why I believe is why they can't make. They refuse to make that connection. I mean, when you're obsessed, when you're taken over by so much hate for one country or one people, you're not going to accept the fact that the reason you're in this mess is because you've decided to get into a conflict with these people. You're going to think the opposite, actually. Well, the obsession is twofold.

There's an obsession with Russia and an absolute loathing of it, which is pervasive. and very powerful, which hasn't gone away. But there's the other obsession, which is the obsession with the EU and the continued belief that many people across Europe have, you meet them everywhere, that the EU is the only way forward. It's somehow the right, ethical, good way forward. It must be, we must continue with the EU. We must continue this process of integration.

Even as everything falls apart around us. I mean, until people start addressing these realities, until they start understanding that economic, scientific, technological decay in Europe is a direct product of the way in which the EU works, then, as I said, we're not going to move forward in Europe. Whatever idea there is of perhaps one day reconciling with the Russians, for example, That's not going to happen. Whatever idea there is of embracing some big technological renaissance in Europe, that isn't going to happen because structurally the EU will always stand in the way of it.

So what's the US going to do at the Munich Security Conference? Why is the US going to even attend the Munich Security Conference? Why are they wasting their time at these ridiculous events? And it is a ridiculous event. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, this is an excellent question, actually. I mean, you can see why they would go to Davos, because Davos is all about, you know, economics and business, all of that. But why are they still going to the Munich Security Conference? Well, at one level, it is force of inertia. I mean, they've always gone, so they always still go. They're still loyal to NATO, as they say, even though I think American perspectives on NATO are shifting, even people who in the US still support now. NATO, and now most of them, I mean, most people within the political class support NATO. Now, they are open about that, which was always true, but they say quite openly that, you know, we support NATO because NATO serves us.

It's what, its purpose is now entirely to serve the interests of the United States, which is why, by the way, we're not so keen on it functioning as a gravy train for the Europeans in the way that it used to do. So they have a much more hard-nosed, tough-minded approach to NATO than they used to. Why are the Americans still going? Well, I think, again, they're going to make it once more clear to the Europeans who really runs the show now. I mean, it isn't, to put aside or pretence that this is a partnership between the

Americans and the Europeans, that this is some great, seamless, collective West, liberal, new liberal order partnership, that they are the vassals and the Americans of the seniors, and that it's the United States and the United States alone that is going to decide the future geopolitical direction, both of Europe and of the West. It's going to be a situation. It's going to be a shit show, Alexander. Always. And they're going to give awards to each other, and Zelensky will get his awards. Oh, of course.

He's always here. And they're going to win the conflict and their plans to win the conflict and their plans to win the conflict and prepare for a war by 2030 and investing 5% in the military and how Europe is going to invest in AI and invest in new technologies. And Ursula's going to throw out all of her various different funds, which are nothing more than massive washing machines. I mean, spending on defense and military production, it's going to be a complete shit show. And we know it. Oh, absolutely.

Of course it is. But you see, this is the genius of it in a way. Because let's talk about military production and militarization in Europe. I read a report this yesterday in the British media, which said that Russia now has more drone operators. than there are soldiers in the British army. I mean, it's absolutely true, actually. The Russians are so far ahead now, the Europeans, that imagining any world in which the Europeans ever catch up

is fantasy. And yes, Heinmetal is doing a few things, but we've discussed in many programs that in a process of deindustrialization, when you're locked in deindustrialization, this is never going to be a success trying to build up your military industrial capacity. I mean, this is an absurd idea.

So it's going to fail, but it will never be demonstrated in a way that people can see that it has failed. The Russians are not going to attack Europe because they have no plan to attack Europe. They're not going to attack Europe in 2027 or in 2029 or in 2030 or at any such time. So what are the Europeans going to say? Are they going to say, well, the reason the Russians haven't attacked us is because the Russians never intended to attack us in the first place? No, they're not. They're going to say that the reason that the Russians are not attacking us is because we spent all this money on defense, even though it has produced nothing. And that has to turn the Russians.

So, I mean, it's a wonderful way of, you know, going on and spending more and more money on defense, making all sorts of people richer and richer still. It is something that can never be disproved because, as I've said many times, you know, proving the negative that the Russians do not intend to attack Europe is impossible. proving a negative, well, it's so impossible, it is extremely difficult. And it is never a compelling story to tell people. Tell them that, you know, you're spending X amounts of money on defense, and your defense spend dwarfs that of the Russians.

That is something that people do understand. Yep. The $1.5 trillion in defense spending for the European Union and the 5% in NATO is the reason. why Putin has not attacked us in 2030. So let's make it 10%. Let's make it 10%. Everyone that's in this globalist club are going to become so freaking rich out of all of this. Exactly. And they're going to be laughing all the way to the bank. And the people are going to buy it. The people are going to believe it in Europe. That's the bottom line. That's the frustrating part.

Enough. Enough people are going to believe it and buy it. No doubt about it. Exactly. Exactly. I mean, you will find, I mean, there'll be a lot of people who won't, but there will never be a critical mass of them to make the difference. And so it will work. I mean, because you see, it is something that can never be conclusively and visibly demonstrated to be untrue. Take my money, protect me from Putin. Please take my money to protect me from Putin. That's basically the model right there.

Exactly. Yeah. All right. It is what it is. Okay, we will end the video there, the durand.locals.com. We are on Rumble and locals and I said locals. We're on Rumble, telegram and X. We're also on substack.

So check us out there and also go to Duran Shop. Pick up some merch, 26% off everything on the Duran Shop. Take care.