The Duran Podcast - Crocus City Hall, ISIS-K, and Russian retribution

Episode Date: March 25, 2024

Crocus City Hall, ISIS-K, and Russian retribution

All right, Alexander, let's discuss the terror attack on Crocus City Hall. That happened over the weekend. And over the weekend, we saw the four terrorists taken to court as well in Russia. Those videos are all over the Internet. What are your thoughts, Alexander? there are a lot of discussion, speculation. Putin gave an interesting five-minute address, many comments from the Russian leadership, Medvedev Zakharva.

What are your initial thoughts on this terrorist attack? Well, I think the first thing to say is it was an absolutely horrifying, indiscriminate attack on a venue, a purely civilian, venue. Apparently a rock concert was being held there. There were hundreds, maybe thousands of people present, mainly obviously young people, people who are not involved in politics, not decision makers, completely civilian targets. And it was utterly, murderously, cruelly indiscriminate. And it was, it was awful. It was one of the most horrible things. And of course, we had other attacks, terrorist attacks in the last 10, 15 years that are somewhat like that, but we shouldn't let

the fact that there had been other terrorist attacks in other places take away from the utter horror and cruelty of what we saw happen on the 22nd of March in Moscow. So I have a number of observations to make. First of all, ISIS has come and claimed responsibility. And there's been a lot of discussion about whether ISIS was involved or not, I think the weight of the evidence now does strongly point to ISIS being involved. I'm choosing my words carefully. We've had, firstly, their claim of responsibility on the AMA news agency website. That's a news agency that ISIS runs or is connected to ISIS. Then they posted a picture. Some people thought, that might have been manipulated, the picture of the four attackers, you know, with a flag and all of that.

But I think what has for me settled the issue about whether or not ISIS was involved is that they've also published a really horrifying video, an appalling video, made during the attack by one of the attackers. So I think we can say that they were involved. But I'm also going to say this. I think firstly, ISIS will not be happy with the way in which this whole attack played out in the end. Not because so many civilians were killed. ISIS likes and wants that. Terrible to say, but it's true.

Everybody who knows anything about ISIS is familiar with this. But with what happened. after because there were six gunmen involved. Two of those gun were killed on the scene. The other four tried to run away. They were hunted down by the Russian security services. All four of them were captured. They've now been brought before a court. They look frightened. And if I have to say it, you know, bruised and battered. do not come across like the kind of holy warriors dedicated to the cause prepared for martyrdom, which is the image that ISIS wants to present to the world of the people who, you know,

conduct their operations for it. So I think from that point of view, this has gone wrong. Now, I, you know, I accept that ISIS operates with large groups of people. There are some people who, you know, members, others who are not, but you'd have thought with such a public attack, they would want to present an image of these implacable holy warriors. And these four individuals do not look like that. They ran away, they were hunted down, hunted down in a forest by police with dogs. It's a bad look. And it's a sad look. And it's that they are talking, which again is not consistent with the image that ISIS wants to convey of the people who work for it. So that's one thing. Now, there is something else, and it really

is very remarkable and very strange, and that is why were these people trying to escape, and why were they trying to escape in the particular direction that they took? I do think there's any real dispute any longer, that they were actually caught in Bryansk region and that they were heading for Ukraine. How did they think they were going to cross the border into Ukraine? This is a border between two countries, Russia and Ukraine, which are, to all intents and purposes, in a state of war. So both sides will be controlling the border, very carefully. There have been attempts at border incursions by the Ukrainians recently in another part of the border, in Belgarod and Kusk regions. The Russians, therefore, will be very

alert in and around the border for any illicit movements, people trying to cross the border in some way. You would assume that the same was true of of the Ukrainians. And yet these people apparently thought that they could cross the border and escape into Ukraine. That's really strange. And then the other thing that I find very strange

and extremely strange are these statements that are coming out from Western officials, including the United States government, saying that Ukraine was not involved, saying that only ISIS was involved. How can they know that? I mean, you know, they're not part

direct parties to the investigation. I mean, how are they so sure about who was involved and who was not involved? But beyond that, they seem to be going out of their way to refute an allegation of Ukrainian involvement, which I think it is important to make the point. The Russians officially, so far, have not yet made. various Russian officials have spoken and hinted about this, about possible Ukrainian involvement, but the Russian state so far has not done so. We have, I mean, it may come, but the West, the United States in particular,

seems to be attempting to preempt an allegation, which, as I said so far, all the Russians haven't made. Yeah, okay, they're trying to get ahead of what they believe is going to be an allegation that is going to be made. Obviously, everyone from Putin to Medvedev have, and the FSB have hinted at Ukrainian involvement. And then you get to the fact. And I think it's, I think it's correct what you said. I haven't seen any evidence proving otherwise. But right now, the the evidence points to to these four terrorists trying to get to the to the border with Ukraine. Why?

I think that's the first question. And, you know, if they're ISIS, if they are indeed ISIS, or ISIS K, it's not even ISIS, it's ISIS K. If they're ISIS K, why are they trying to escape to Ukraine? Why would that be the direction for them to go? And then I think you run into, you know, for me, this is the big problem with all of this, or the big confusion. What exactly is ISIS today or ISIS King? What does that even mean anymore?

You know, during Syria, during the conflict in Syria, when ISIS first, you know, made the scene, I remember covering Syria. I remember it very well. everyone understood what ISIS was. It was this this offshoot of al-Qaeda, moderate rebels. If you want to call them bad, some people say moderate rebels. Some people say an offshoot of al-Qaeda. But here was this group operating in the region with a goal of regime change of Assad and creating their own caliphate. I mean, everyone understood that that's what ISIS's goal was at that. time. They were terrorists. They engaged the terrorist activity, but they were operating in Syria, in the region during the conflict in Syria. And they almost achieved their goal, which was to take

Damascus, raise that black flag and remove Assad. Today, I hear the word ISIS and or ISIS K for that matter. And I don't even know. What does that even mean? Who's their leadership structure? I mean, you know, you had Baghdad, I'll Baghdaddy, I believe back in the time of Syria. Who's their leadership structure now? Who are these people? Yeah. Are they connected to al-Qaeda? I'm hearing Afghanistan.

These guys operated in Afghanistan. Why Tajikistan? Why these four individuals? You have many reports of their fighters involved in the conflict in Ukraine, being recruited in the conflict in Ukraine. So I don't know. I've got a lot of question marks, as I'm sure many viewers do, about this group that the collective West media, as you pointed out, is telling us they are behind it. 100 percent, they are behind it. And the Russian government, they're hinting at some involvement in Ukraine, but they're not saying that it was ISIS or Ukraine officially. They're not saying it was ISIS, Ukraine or anybody else. They're saying it's still under investigation. but within hours of the terrorist strike, Kirby was telling us it's ISIS-K. Well, that's exactly right. I mean, I think that's an important point because everybody, all these governments

are making these statements saying it was ISIS-K are preempting the results of the investigation. And, you know, one would prefer to wait for an investigation, and then when one starts to get information from the investigators, then you can express your view. You might disagree. You might have information that contradicts what the investigators are saying. You're entitled to say it.

But as I said, I do find the business of preempting what the investigators are going to say in an event of this kind, especially, you know, massive terrorist attack, hundreds of people killed, a massive devastation done in a capital city.

I mean, you know, that you're rushing to, point in one direction as opposed to another. To me, actually, that looks very defensive. I'm trying to preempt. Why preempt? Surely the best thing to do is to maintain a respectful silence say that this is a terrible, awful, appalling tragedy. Let the commentators say whatever they want. But for the governments themselves, I think that the correct and proper thing at this time would have been to remain silent until finally we got, you know, the announcement from the investigators as to who they thought was responsible. And given that we now caught these four people, the Russians

have caught these four people and have apparently arrested seven others. So it looks like the entire terrorist cell has been rounded up. You know, we are probably going to get some kind of information from the investigators fairly soon. Just so. Anyway, that is one. Now, coming to the question of what ISIS is, I completely agree. In fact, I mean, I think we both made similar points about this on our programs. Firstly, the original ISIS was a break away from Al Qaeda. It then established itself as its distinction.

What distinguished it from Al Qaeda was that it was supposed to be the caliphate, the new caliphate, with a new caliph who was al-Baghdadi, he proclaimed himself caliph, the leader of the Islamic world in the great mosque of Mosul. We all remember the pictures. And that was what it was supposed to be about. It was going to be the Islamic state that brought together all Muslims that said that Muslim governments, all governments of Muslim states that did not acknowledge, the Caliph was somehow heretical and in rebellion against the true religious and political center of Islam, which is what they claim to be.

And that collapsed, that failed utterly. The Caliphate was destroyed. al-Baghdadi himself was killed the whole thing imploded the russians rolled it up in syria along with the syrian army the iraq is with the help and the americans did the same in iraq i mean the whole thing burst like you know a bubble though not before it had done enormous devastation now as far as i know they do not claim to be the caliphic anymore. Their leader, whoever he is, I don't know who their leader is, he does not claim to be the caliph of Islam.

In fact, since he controls no territory, he can't be the caliph of Islam. So, given that this is so, what is it? There's been reports, I remember that they were circulating way back in 2021. that after the Taliban took over from the Americans in Afghanistan, there were reports that ISIS K was operating in Afghanistan and was running some kind of insurgency against the Taliban. But we heard a little quite a lot about that for a few weeks that it all seemed to fade out. And from what I understand, this insurgency to all intents of purposes in Afghanistan does not exist.

and we've also heard reports that there is some kind of organization operating in Central Asia, in Tajikistan and places like that. I haven't really seen much evidence for the existence of this organization. So what is it? I mean, is it a real entity? Is it just guns for hire, just saying? Because there's some talk that people would be paid for what they were doing. I mean, what exactly is it? What does it represent?

What is its ideology? What is its purpose? Why do people take it seriously? And why does it conduct attacks like this? So I think there's a massive question mark over this organisation. And until the point comes when this is explained to me, which it hasn't been up to this point, Nobody seems to be addressing these sort of questions. Well, that makes me even more puzzled about what this whole operation was about.

And coming back, as I said, to the way in which these four individuals behaved, the fact that they jumped into a white Renault car and sped for the border with the police and the security services in hot pursuit, and then threw away their weapons and drove a problem. apparently into a wood, ran across the wood and, as I said, pursued by the armed police with dogs. Well, as I said, that isn't at all like the ISIS, I remember. Either this organization has degraded dreadfully or there's something else going on. Just saying. I agree with you. I think it's obvious that this ISIS or ISIS-K or this new.

ISIS, whatever this is, really doesn't have that much of a connection to what was happening in Syria during the height of ISIS's power and exposure. Obviously, the two organizations don't seem to have much in common at all except for the sharing of the name. And I don't even know why this name is attributed to this new group. I don't know. Maybe there's a reason for it. Maybe I'm missing something.

But if that's the case, then, you know, the questions come up. The way these four terrorists acted does not seem to be something that a group like al-Qaeda or ISIS would do in these types of terrorist acts. They weren't looking to martyr themselves. This didn't seem to be connected to any type of religious or ideological message. We do know that they got paid. I mean, I think that's, that's now been, at least the FSP has told us that they were being offered 500,000 rubles and a million rubles if they were able to escape, which is not that much money to $10,000, give or take. You know, it leaves open the question mark, the thinking, you know, why these four individuals and if this isn't a type of a of a religious or ideological terrorist act aimed at at punishing Russia

for what happened in Syria, it doesn't seem like that's what this is about at all. Then what is this about? And what's behind all of this? Well, indeed, many questions. And in your mind, and your mind goes. And naturally your mind goes to the conflict in Ukraine because that's the direction towards where they were moving towards. Absolutely. I mean, a heavily guarded border, whereas it perhaps ought to be pointed out that the border with Central Asia, which is enormous.

Russia's border with the Central Asian states is huge, much bigger than its border with Ukraine. You don't have to look at a map to see that. It's much, much more permeable. I mean, it's not guarded to anything like the same extent because the Central Asian states and Russia are on good terms and most of them are united with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union and the collective security treaty organization so that there is a wide degree of free movement and people are able to come from the Central Asian states into Russia to work as a guest. workers and an awful lot of that goes on so on on the face of it if these people wanted to escape it would be more logical for them to head east rather than west towards what is probably at this moment in time the most heavily guarded border in the world just saying so i mean there are lots of unanswered questions about this affair we will get the answers i mean the russians do

have these people in detention, which is interesting in itself. They were able to capture, they've arrested seven others. Nobody, I think, seriously doubts that the four people, the Russians have detained were, in fact, the perpetrators of this attack. So, you know, this case is going to be broken, I think, fairly quickly. and what the Russians will tell us, as I said, some people may decide that they don't believe it, and if so, they can say what they think. But I will be very interested to see what exactly it is that the Russians do say, and I think we will be able to draw a lot of conclusions from it.

You're absolutely correct in one point. If we're talking about the situation in Russia today, everything to my, in my opinion, ultimately relates to the conflict in Ukraine. It is the overwhelming story relating to Russia and the fact that these people were heading towards Ukraine is a very indicative and important fact. Now, what it's going to tell us, we'll just have to wait and see. Well, from what I understand,

one of the terrorists actually was in the Ukraine military for a certain time as well. But we also got to remember that they have seven other people that we don't know anything about. So it'll be interesting to see who these other seven people in this cell in this terrorist cell are. Yeah, I think before you go on, you know, I just say this is something else, which I find really absolutely remarkable. Because usually when ISIS or Al-Qaeda have carried out horrific terrorist attacks, it's taken a while before the authorities are. are able to roll up the entire cell and get to the bottom of what happened. This time, it's happened at incredible speed.

And I'm going to express of you. It seems that these four people came from Tajikistan, which is one of the former republics of the Soviet Union, where the place where, as a guest work, has come. I'm going to make a guess that the Tajik community in Moscow, pretty much as soon as this happened, got in touch with the authorities and basically said,

look, these people, are the people you need to deal with because we both go to Moscow. There's a large community from Tajikistan there. They will not want any trouble for themselves. They have good jobs. What they do is vital for Tajikistan's economy and indeed for their own families. So, you know, this is probably one attack. It's going to be

very difficult to carry it out again because the Tajik and other Central Asian communities will be very alert to preventing this thing from happening another time and will be probably passing information to the Russian authorities very quickly. I just wanted to throw that in because I haven't seen that point made, but I'm confident that this is. happened. Yeah. It's an excellent point. And I think it once again, at least for me, it shows that this ISIS K, outside of just sharing the name of ISIS, I just failed to see any connection to the ISIS that I reported on and that I know. I don't understand what they have in common outside of just sharing this name. Well, absolutely. I mean, the point about I'm not an expert. I'm not an ISIS expert,

so I might be missing something. The point about ISIS was it was the Islamic State, it was the Caliphate. Now that that has collapsed, I mean, at the very least, one would assume a total collapse in its credibility.

So what would be the attraction for, you know, violent young men who want to be drawn into jihadi activity to go to something that has so completely failed, And it's so completely. Was this jihadi activity, though?

Well, that's another point. I mean, you said, was this attack jihadi activity? And you look at these guys as well. Can I make an observation as as far as their physical appearance? These guys, they don't look like they're military men. They don't look like their special forces or trained soldiers in any capacity whatsoever. Well, and they also look at a hairdresser, from what I understand.

And I mean, and they also look terrified. And they also, and they also look terrified. Which again, going back to what I said at the start of the program, is absolutely not the image that the original ISIS, perhaps I should have made that clear, would have wanted to present to Muslims and to the world.

They wanted to present an image of fearless, implacable holy warriors. These people look frightened men caught up in the enormity of some horror that they've perpetrated. Yeah. Okay. So, you know, we're going to have to discuss then what happens with Ukraine and all of this. Because while the Russian state has not officially accused anybody, any actor, anybody, any state, any entity. They have not officially accused anybody. They're still investigating. The hints are there that they're looking at Ukraine. This has got the collective West very worried. This has Zelensky, terrified. He's acting tough, but you can tell him the videos that he put out. He is terrified. He's back in the bunker. That's how

scare he is. I guess I'll give you two questions. Would it even be possible for Russia, given everything that that has happened, given given the way that I believe the Russians feel right now about this, this terrorist attack, will it even be possible if, if they find out this isn't connected to Ukraine, if, and I'm saying if, is it even possible for Russia not to take action against Ukraine, given where emotions are. And my second part, the second part of the question is, if, once again, if the investigation shows that Ukraine played a role in this terror attack, and when I mean Ukraine, I could be talking about the Zelensky administration. I could be talking about Budanov and the Intel services. I could be talking about a different actor. I don't know.

I don't know. But if they managed to tie the to Ukraine, what happens next? Right. To answer your first question, I think the answer is that if the investigation does bring out evidence that Ukraine was not involved and that no one in Ukraine was involved, I think the Russians can actually stop because they've been very, very careful, actually not to make any formal claim up to Ukraine, up to this point. If you listen carefully to what the various Russian officials say, and of course some have been a lot more explicit than others, but it's clear that at the back of their minds, they think Ukraine or someone in Ukraine was involved.

And I think the thing that makes them think that is the fact that these people were trying to escape towards the Ukrainian border. That is the big clue. And Putin said that in his address to the Russian people, that a window was going to be open on the war. border to allow these people to cross. And that's a very suggestive phrase. And one wonders what he meant by it. And one also wonders what that window would have consisted of, given that, as I said, this is a very, very heavily guarded and protected border on both sides.

But anyway, I'm not going to explore that. I think the Russians think... Can I just ask you a question about that real quick? Yeah. When Putin made that statement, wouldn't have he... run that through the FSB, if he was going to say a window was going to be open, can you assume that the FSB would have told them that according to their information, they believe a window was going to be open?

So yes, you can mention that in your five-minute address? Well, can I just say something? If you go to Putin's address, at least the transcript of it that's been published on the Kremlin's website, Putin speaks of that as a fact that the window was going to be opened on the border. He has clearly been briefed, and he's not saying that it looks like that a window was going to be open on the border. He simply says a window was going to be opened on the border. So it looks as if he has been briefed, and he has been told this, by the FSB. And that, as I said, does clearly point to some involvement by someone in Ukraine.

You know, you're right to say that we don't yet know who it was. Could have been the government. It could have been the intelligence agencies. It could have been Bikdanov. It could have been some other rogue act. There's any number of people in Ukraine. And we're not going to go and speculate about that. But if, despite all of that, despite all of the indicators of what the Russians are thinking,

they nonetheless come to the view and decide that Ukraine was not involved, then absolutely they can stop. they've been very careful up to this moment in time, not to say, straightforwardly, Ukraine is implicated. So that is one. If they find out to their own satisfaction that Ukraine was involved, well, I mean, you know, the possibilities then become awesome and terrifying, because obviously Putin has already said that they will act to track down and punish every. responsible. The Russian people will expect no less. A couple of days ago, Peskov was talking about Russia and Ukraine being in a state of war. He rode back on that comment somewhat. He said that

isn't legally the case. Sending unarmed people across your border to carry out an attack of this kind is absolutely an active war, by the way. The Russian is Ukrainian state was involved. It would arguably justify a formal declaration of war. Even if the Ukrainian state was not directly involved, the Russians could present Ukraine with an ultimatum, demand the surrender of all of those people who were involved, perhaps identifying who they were. If Ukraine failed to comply with that ultimaters it, then again, you could actually find yourself at that point in a situation where the Russians feel that they are entitled to declare war. So, I mean, this is an awesome prospect. I have to say it's a real one. Right. Let me follow up on that. The UK, I forgot who it was. I think it was Hunt of the

UK, but he gave an interview to one of the channels and he said not to believe anything that the Russians say. So whatever's coming out of Russia, he said, don't believe it. So what happens if the Russians do give this ultimatum, say they do manage to connect this terrorist activity to some entity to someone in Ukraine and they do give an ultimatum and they say we want these people turned over to us? Otherwise, we're going to ramp things up. would you expect, I would expect the U.S. or the collective West to dispute whatever Russia says and to tell Ukraine no, don't give in to any Russian demands, don't believe anything the Russians say, we're telling you Ukraine was not involved. And I imagine that they're going to stick to that line. And what happens then? And I imagine the rest of the world, the global majority will probably

believe Russia, which actually, when you think about it, does a lot of damage to the U.S.'s narrative of this conflict being unprovoked and there was no justification for Russia to go to war with Ukraine to engage in the special military operation. I mean, that narrative falls apart. if Russia manages to produce credible, indisputable evidence, facts that do point to some sort of entity, some people in Ukraine with regards to this terrorist attack? Well, first of all, I agree. I mean, I think the first thing to say is whatever evidence the Russians produce, even if it is absolutely concrete, you know, concrete, indisputable, unchallengable that Ukraine was involved.

The Western powers have already made it clear that they're going to. to reject it. I mean, they've already said Ukraine was not involved in any way. It is entirely ISIS is doing. So they've already said that. They're not going to row back on that. That is going to be their position. So, you know, whatever happens, whatever the Russians find out, whatever the Russians say, the West is going to deny that it is true. Nonetheless, they are extremely nervous. Firstly, I think they probably deep down are nervous. that someone in Ukraine might have been involved in some form. I mean, they know all about this business.

I mean, they're able to work out the same points that we have about how do you cross a border like this. And they know that the internal situation in Ukraine is such that you can never be completely sure that someone in Ukraine was not involved at some level. So I suspect there's nervousness about that already. Putting it aside, they are also aware of the completely disastrous military situation that Ukraine is in at the present time. And they know very well that if Russia now moves to a state of declared war against Ukraine and starts treating this as a war, there's really no stopping them.

I mean, even as a special military operation, the Russians are now advancing on every front. Their missile attacks are becoming more and more powerful. Their air force is becoming more and more powerful. And they've got hundreds of thousands of men training and equipping on Russian territory. Some of them probably already trained and equipped and ready to take action. So this is going, this would be for the West the worst nightmare, because you would have an advance. by the Russian army, much more purposeful, but intense one than the one we've seen up to this point,

more heavy bombing than we've seen up to this point, probably no territorial limit to how far it would go. And at a time when the West is not ready to do anything about it, and during an election year. So again, you can see why they're very nervous. Yeah, during an election year, and you could possibly have a narrative where there was, you have a narrative that there was a terrorist attack committed against Russia.

And you could have the narrative that this terrorist attack against Russia was, was done by various forces in Ukraine. These are all possibilities that that could play out. And that's why the West is frightened about all of this. But, you know, I find, Bear in mind, as an indicator of how nervous some people are, there has already been an attempt, especially in Ukraine, to try and pretend that this was all the fake false flag operation. It has already, that has collapsed following the rest of these four suspects.

Did more damage. Exactly. But, I mean, you know, the pictures from the Amak agency, and now, as I said, the arrest of these people. But the very fact that that narrative was floated for a couple of hours, already, again, is a sign of how nervous some people already are. That was a very dumb move, a very dumb move. Very dumb move. Exactly.

Yeah, so my final question is, you know, you have states within a state, within a state in the United States. You have this in Ukraine as well. You know, this is documented now that people like, Budanov and his intel organizations, they operate many times without the knowledge of the CIA or the three-letter agencies in the U.S. or even the knowledge of the Zelensky regime. And you have all these different actors which operate in a rogue type of matter. Even the CIA, you know, you could make the argument that the CIA operates many times without the president or definitely Biden knowing what they're doing. So, you know, you come back to some of the comments and statements that people like Newland made about nasty surprises.

Or a lot of people are talking about Millie and what he said back in 2003, I believe, or 22, right before they were planning the counteroffensive, the spring counteroffensive, where he said that, you know, Russians should not be able to sleep. and we have to take this, you know, behind the enemy's lines. You know, could something like this be playing out as well where you do have, you know, an intel organization in Ukraine that is acting without the knowledge of the central government? And maybe they're liaising with Collective West intel organizations who are acting without the knowledge of the central government. government or just in general, something like this going on. I think all the third. There's a lot of different players in all of this that are that are selling weapons, that are moving weapons, that are creating operations to strike into Russia or come up with

these crazy plans to go after Putin or go after, you know, people in Russian territory. I mean, all of this stuff has been playing out over two years. maybe maybe this is one of those operations or plans that that they came up with and and there you have it. I don't know. Right. Right. About Ukraine. My point is that we have had this dynamic over two years. And even the Washington Post in the New York Times has reported on this dynamic in the conflict. Well, I'm glad you brought up the New York Times because, of course, we have, I mean,

let's start with Ukraine. I mean, there are absolutely people in Ukraine and agencies and entities in Ukraine that operate in a completely, you know, law to unto themselves. Oligarchs. I mean, the Azov people, all of those people. I mean, nobody fully controls them. I mean, I think this is the thing to say. I mean, you know, this is the Kraken group. All kinds of people at that kind could get up to all sorts of things.

the structure of control is incredibly tenuous and it's far from impossible that some of them could resort to all sorts of things bear mind we had that article in the new york times about the cia's involvement in ukraine and they were basically saying there that the ukrainians basically did whatever they liked and they carried out incredibly murderous and violent actions

on russian territory on dombas and in Crimea, before the conflict began in 2022, that they were already doing it. Budanaf himself was involved. So, you know, we have that culture. And, you know, I'm not, by the way, again, I want to stress, I'm not actually saying that any one of these agencies was involved. But I can plausibly believe ever, you know, I can imagine that they could have been involved. I mean, I'm not saying.

Now, about Western intelligence agencies, here I have to say this, I think at a formal level, I think it is incredibly unlikely, all but inconceivable, that a Western intelligence agency would be involved in something like this. I think that this kind of operation, this kind of terrorist act in Moscow, the consequences, if it were to come, come out that they were involved, be so extreme that it would be very, very dangerous for them. But what they tend to do is they get involved with all kinds of strange people, using careful words now. We saw that in the Middle East. We saw that in Syria.

They provide arms, equipment, training. They know what these people are like. they knew that in Afghanistan back in the 1980s. They know what these people can do. And, well, they look the other way. At least they appear to. It could be that some people at some level within those agencies are familiar with what's going on.

But basically, they give a loaded gun to these people that say, you know, go off, do whatever you like. It's for yours to use now. And that's more how they work, or at least so it seems to me. In other words, what I'm saying is they wouldn't be directly involved in planning or preparing something like this. But they probably wouldn't be completely surprised if some of the people they've been involved in actually did that.

And, you know, they'd be aware in advance, at least to some, extent that these people are capable of doing things like this. All right. Very dangerous, a horrific incident. A very dangerous situation that we're now heading towards. Well, if I may say, I mean, here we come back to an underlying problem, because of course, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, all of these entities and movements, they are, and I'd long believe this, they are a product of the covert, and they're even going to call them intelligence. wars, the sort of covert wars that have been fought and which the neocons are so enthralled by. And they always throw up people like this who are incredibly difficult to control.

Covert activities, it seems to me, are a disaster altogether, and they ought to be stopped. And we're going to have problems of this kind continuing for as long as they continue. You know what else needs to be stopped? The final thought is all the stupid. comments, the reckless comments that collective West leaders in the media make. Oh, absolutely. You know, nasty surprises and he's a dictator and a thug and we need to regime change him and remove him.

And we're going to give Russia a bloody nose and we need to strike behind the lines. You see, all of these comments and statements that they make, they're now being talked about again in the context of this terrorist attack. I'm not saying there was any involvement there. I'm just my point is that, you know, all of these people in such high positions should just not, should refrain from making these types of statements. Even if you think it, even if you believe it, don't make these type of statements because you don't know what's going to happen in a year or two. You're absolutely correct.

Can I just make an observation here? I mean, the wartime allies didn't talk about the German leadership in that way, during the Second World War. I mean, this is a, you know, World War for survival. And even then, you know, Churchill and Roosevelt didn't talk, and their officials didn't talk about the German leaders using this kind of language. This is terrible, stupid language to use.

It's infantile language. I mean, it is, it's the sort of thing you expect from teenagers, not from leaders. And as you rightly say, it cautions. the entire international atmosphere. And it makes all kinds of things possible, which should not be possible. Agreed. All right.

We will end it there. The durand.com. We are on Rumble Odyssey, picture, telegram, and Rock Finn. Take care.