The Duran Podcast - EU elite angry with Rubio speech, but give him standing ovation

Episode Date: February 16, 2026

EU elite angry with Rubio speech, but give him standing ovation

All right, Alexander, let's talk about the Munich Security Conference, which has wrapped up. And we had the big speech from Marco Rubio. What did you think about his speech to the audience of Munich who gave him a standing ovation, even though it appeared as if Rubio was telling them that they're not doing a very good job in managing the empire? So he was scolding them a bit, or maybe it was a type of pep talk as well. They need to do better to manage empire. But anyway, it was about empire. The speech was about empire.

So your thoughts. Well, I think probably the reason they gave him a standing ovation is because he wasn't J.D. Vance, and he wasn't being quite as rude about them as other officials within the administration had been. And of course, he did offer them some scraps, and I think they were grateful for that all together. But I wonder whether they actually completely understood the speech he was giving. And sometimes I actually wonder whether Rubio was, because you talked about empire. This was the most nakedly imperialistic speech that an American secretary of state has given since I think the foundation of the Republic in the 1780s.

Perhaps there was an exception, which is the Theodore Roosevelt period, before the First World War and all of that. But I mean, this is absolute naked imperialism. It was, you know, that the West has been in decline, but that it was now reverse its decline, that the way to do this is basically for everybody to get behind. the United States, that the United States is going to be utterly aggressive from this point forward,

that we can forget all about liberalism, globalism, all those nice fancy words. They've served their purpose. They don't really mean anything anymore. It's raw power, and that's all it is. And we're in this great enterprise to reestablish the empire in the strongest possible way, using every tool at our disposal, you know, violence if we have to, military power, definitely, economic coercion, if that's what works. And we're going to do it for naked self-interest to preserve the West.

We are not really any longer there to act as missionaries, to pretend to the rest of the world, or even to ourselves, that we are doing it for some greater, higher motive. Now, that is how the speech, I have to say, read to me. Obviously, he didn't put it quite as savagely as that. But that was basically the meaning. And there was this extraordinary passage in which he compared the state of the West today and the state of the West before the Second World War, when the West was embarked, was still engaged in vast imperial enterprises,

when the world was covered by European colonial empires. And he almost spoke as if the dismantling of those empires because they were symptoms of the decline of Europe and of the West was a bad thing. Completely ignoring the fact, by the way, that it was the United States that was instrumental to a great extent, not entirely or not even principally, but it was instrumental in a great extent, to a great extent, in dismantling those empires.

Now, I have to say, not only was this, in my opinion, a savagely imperialist speech, it was also a complete betrayal of the MAGA American first non-interventionist principles that Donald Trump won election on. back in 2024. Perhaps by now we should not be surprised about that. But I have to also say, to me, it looked completely utopian, utterly fantastic, as detached from reality, as anything we've heard from the classical neocons, even more so, perhaps.

Maybe the United States could have entertained these fantastic ideas at the peak moment of its power in the 1940s. But today, when it is massively in debt, when it is deindustrializing itself, when it no longer accounts for such a major part of the global economy, I mean, to me, it seemed to be completely unreal. Anyway, that was my preliminary view of it. So Rubio's speech was a neocon speech. Oh, yeah. Rubio being a neocon, he gave a neocon speech, which was very honest. in how they saw the world, how they see the world, the unipolar world, the empire, empire building, empire maintaining, more than empire building, because that's what his speech was about. And the fact that the Europeans are not doing a good job in maintaining the empire, but it was a neocon speech. And so there was no, there were no lies about democracy, humanitarian intervention.

and stuff like that, which is what pissed off the Europeans. You see, the Europeans are neoliberals. They're from the Obama School of neoliberalism, and Rubio is from the Dick Cheney School of being a neocon. They both strive for the same things. They both want hegemony, they both want empire, they both want a rule over the world, They both want access to resources, to all the resources, and regime change and control of all the countries.

The difference is in their approach. And I think the Europeans were very upset with the fact that Rubio was saying it so honestly, where they like to hide their empire through the lens of more. through a cover of morality. The West is morally better and superior than the global South. That is why we have to rule over you. So I think this was what upset them so much. There were photos of Kayakalus' face, and she was very upset, very angry as she was listening

to Rubio because they don't like the honest approach that Rubio was taking, which was basically look, we're stronger. And so we're going to do whatever we want in the world for our own interests. so we can get richer, so we can get even stronger, so we can do what is in the interest of the empire, where the neoliberals, they like the cover of morality. And they didn't like Rubio's approach. I think that's what we saw happening in Munich. They both want the same thing.

They just have a different approach. Well, let me put it like this. It does go back. A lot of this rhetoric does derive ultimately from the Bush-Cheney years. I mean, you heard an awful lot of that rhetoric at that time. But, I mean, this took it rhetorically much further. I mean, it made the United States openly predatory in a way that even Bush-Cheney weren't prepared quite to go. I mean, Bush and Cheney still talked about freedom, democracy, all of those things. This isn't really what Ruby at all is interested in. It's the naked imperialism pursuit of power.

I don't think it's just consolidation. I think it is expansion of power wherever it can be expanded to. It's very aggressive. And it's very aggressive against the other two great powers, China especially, Russia too, which are clearly in this world seen as adversaries. Now, about the fact that Rubio is a neocon and a neocon on steroids, that is absolutely true, and that he is not a neoliberal, but that the ultimate point of destination is the same. that is true also.

But it's important to understand what American neoliberalism, Obama-Biden neoliberalism, was all about what its purpose was. Because if you're talking about the global South, if you're talking about China, Russia, there really is no distinction between neocons and neoliberal. But there is a huge difference for the Europeans. Neoliberalism is a package of

rhetorical ideas that was created in the United States, mostly during the Obama time, but also to some extent going back to the Bill Clinton time, in order to reassure the Europeans and to tell the Europeans, look, it's not just the United States. It's not us alone. We are not the masters. We're not just the masters of this project. We are a team. We are the West. We are all working together. This is all part of our objective. And when they talked about democracy, freedom, democracy extension, all of those things. This is all packaged basically to make American power look more attractive for the Europeans and to make it seem to the Europeans that actually they were honored passengers in this project, stripping all that way, saying that this is entirely

exclusively about American power and that the role of the Europeans is obviously to be strong and aggressive, but strong and aggressive, as warriors of the American Imperial Project, subordinates the Europeans and leaves them in a position where instead of being partners, they are servants. And that is something that obviously is very difficult for them to accept, and that is why after the speech was over, after they gave him all of that applause, there were all those long faces. And one of the other things was that because this is a purely American-centered project, when I say American-centered, not in the MAGA sense, of being about living standards

and industrialization in the United States, but about projecting American power, building the empire, and acquiring for the imperial class in the United States the benefits of the empire. Because it is purely American-centered in that respect, it really doesn't care so much about the major concerns that Europeans have. So you've got a little war in Ukraine? Well, it's less important for us, so I'm not even going to bother to turn up to the committee that you have set up in order to discuss it. As your business, I am after we in the United States are after more valuable. things that are important to us. Ukraine, you can take care of it. Well, I think it was, I agree with you, but it's a scolding. It was, on the one hand, it was, it was Rubio saying, you're not

doing a good job maintaining our empire. And on the other hand, it was, it was an encouraging talking away as well, a pep talking that you can do better. We don't need to, the West, the West doesn't need to fade away. We don't need to die. The empire doesn't need to die. It's a choice, he said. It's a choice that we make. But as vassals, as warriors, you said the word warriors. It's a nice diplomatic way of putting it. But as Kayakalus would be happy with that word, warriors. But vassals is what he's really saying. As vassals, as subordinates, you need to do better. Yes. Oh, absolutely. Yes. He wants Europe to remain. He wants, he wants Europe to remain. He wants European countries to remain martial and loyal at the same time, to be prepared to go out to,

you know, the jungles of East-Southeastern Asia and the deserts of Arabia and to fight. But of course, they are fighting for the American Empire. Yes. I mean, what this speech does is it conflates the West with a specific. specifically American imperial project, not a neoliberal Victorian Newlands, Madeline-Alein-Alebright project, which is all about, you know, democracy promotion, making life better for people in all places in the world, doing all of these things, supporting, you know, all of the social identity issues and all of that, it's now purely, straightforwardly about power. It's only about power,

and there is a hierarchy of power. There's a hierarchy of power. We, the United States, are the imperial center. You are there. You've got to be strong. You've got to be tough. And you're going to do as you're told. Well, they don't have a problem with it, the Europeans. I don't think they have a problem with that. It's just in the way it's packaged. There was an interesting exchange during one of the panels between Kaya Callas and Mike Waltz. I believe it was Mike Waltz. And Callis, she said that when Russia goes to war, Russia is alone. It has no friends, right? Which kind of runs contrary to what they've been telling us, which is that China is completely propping up Russia. But anyway, she forgets about that. Let's not blame Callis for that.

But she's sitting there, she's saying, look, when Russia goes to war, they go alone. because they have no friends, they have no allies. So they're all by themselves. But when the U.S. goes to war, when she's addressing waltz, when you guys go to war, we're there with you. She said, we're even dying for you. We're fighting for you. We're dying for you.

So just please admit that you're a superpower, but we're also with you. You're a superpower because of us. So in a way, it was callous admitting that, yeah, we are your subordinates. We are your vassals. or please continue to send us off to fight for you as warriors as part of the empire. But just every once in a while, be nice to us. Say thank you. Show us some appreciation.

Invite us to the table. Maybe don't be so aggressive in how you're packaging empire. We kind of liked the way Obama and Samantha Power humanitarian intervention, as she called it, We kind of liked the way they packaged empire. It was nicer. It was a softer touch. It made us look morally superior, even though we were still doing the, we were still with you in these illegal wars and in these bombings. At least it gave a moral spin to it. And we kind of like that. It was green. It was about green energy. It was about weapons of mass destruction. It was about going after terrorists or whatever. It was a nice, a nice softer approach. That was what she was telling Waltz.

Yeah, I completely agree. There's a few points to make, though. Firstly, in everything that you said, I mean, obviously, they far prefer this sort of rhetoric to genuine MAGA America's rhetoric. I mean, that absolutely utterly horrifies them. They like the only passing out cookies before the regime changed. Exactly, exactly, exactly. That's what they like.

Pass out the cookies. please, before you overthrow the government. Exactly. But the idea of the United States reverting to becoming a republic, focusing on its democracy, looking after itself, not fretting all the time about affairs in Europe, that horrifies them. So far better what Rubio is saying than the sort of more MAGA messages. that they were getting last year from people like J.D. Vance.

And that, by the way, explains the applause and the standing ovation that Marco Rubio got. But there are qualifications, and you're absolutely right, you know, sugar-coating it, you know, telling them, you know, we're all into morality, where all the good people, we're doing all of these things, which is important in some ways for the Europeans, because remember, it was the Europeans who created the colonial empires. It was the Europeans where all the horrors of the 20th century played out. You know, what happened in Germany, what happened in Eastern Europe, in Russia, in all of these places.

So we want to put that behind us or at least pretend to so that we're not those bad people anymore. We are the good people now. These still matter to some people, to some people in Europe. But there is something beyond that. which does worry them about this rhetoric from Rubio and from Trump. It's not the fact that the Americans are coming along and say, come along and die for us in Arabia or Southeast Asia or wherever. I mean, as you rightly said, these people, the people at the Munich Security Conference

are fine with that. But they also want the power of the United States to be used to fulfill. their own particular narrow objectives. So they want the United States, not just to remain in Europe, but to promote European interests, European interests in conflicts with Russia, European interests in conflicts in Ukraine. And it is very unsettling to them for the Americans to come along and say, look, this is not a two-way street. You are there to act as our absolutely loyal and reliable allies, except they're not really allies. As I said, they're servants, they're warriors,

they're there to do the job. They're the Janissaries, if you like. You know, the Janissaries were the Sultan's slaves. There were formidable fighters at the same time. But they were always the Sultan's slaves during the heyday of the Ottoman Empire. So that's what the American, that's what Rubio and the neocons in Washington see the Europeans as. But the slaves do not have any demand. They have no right to make demands of the master. So if they have this business, unresolved business in Ukraine with the Russians. And the Americans say, well, we've tried that. We've been there. It didn't work out. We're going away. We're going to send negotiators to meet with the Russians and do all of that kind of thing. And we're not going to give you more weapons because we need them

for ourselves. Well, that is not what the Europeans want to hear. They wanted to be, at least to some extent, a two-way street, not just them giving and doing what the Americans tell them, but also receiving something back in return. And Rubio really didn't seem to be interested in much of that. He really doesn't, he really didn't care very much about European concerns. In fact, he barely addressed them. And he conflated, as I said, the whole West, with, the American Empire, which as I said, when they all went away, when they were probably, you know, having their cocktail parties afterwards, which is something the Europeans love, they will have started to talk about that and to notice it and to worry about it amongst themselves.

Yeah, the Europeans do love their cocktail parties, that's for sure. And they do love their events. They have an event every two, three days, it seems. But anyway, the Munich Security Conference was all about war with Russia, right? War with Russia? Oh, yeah. I mean, if you had to summarize the conference, I would summarize it as very, very similar to 2022, actually, in that they were very excited about the proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. That was 2002.

Very excited about that. You call it an intoxication. That's the way you described, 22 when they were very, very intoxicated at the process. at the prospect of a proxy conflict with Russia, sanctions against Russia, and an eventual three to four month collapse of the Putin government. That was 2022. I would say 2026 was a type of intoxication at the prospect of a future war with Russia and the gaslighting of Ukraine is winning and Russia is losing because they kept on repeating that over and over again. I guess the thinking is that if you say it enough times, you believe it and eventually

it will come true, a type of affirmation, right? It was their affirmation. Russia is losing. Russia is losing. Ukraine is winning. Ukraine is winning. So they kept on repeating that. And they're hoping that it'll eventually manifest.

But war with Russia. That was the theme. It's an absolute. it's an, the affirmation of the same thing again and again and again, and the expectation that affirming it 101 times is going to make it so. It is a very, very well-known psychological trait, and Europe suffers from it in a very, very big way. Yes, there are resemblances with Munich 2022, except I'll tell you that there was one difference. There is one difference. In February 2020, I got the overwhelming sense that these

people were not just intoxicated. They were euphoric. I mean, they were anticipating not a victory, but an immediate victory. They were sure it was going to come right. I was going to say the word confident in 2022. Yeah. I mean, it went beyond confidence. I mean, it was total certainty. and the joy that it was going to come. So, you know, we'd put Obama's dithering behind us because, according to this kind of mindset, Obama had always held back from going all the way. It would put behind us Trump won, who'd talked instead about having better relations with the Russians. Now we have the administration in Washington that was going to wrestle with this thing,

pull Putin down. And there was as an extraordinary sense of excitement. Now, this time is war with Russia, but there isn't that same sense of euphoria about it. You get the sense that all of this affirmation, Russia is losing. Ukraine is winning. They're suffering all these hundreds of thousands A thousand a month. 35,000 a month. Exactly, exactly. All of that, their economy is about to go into a tailspin. One sense is that deep down, they either don't quite believe these things or that they're

not really sure about them anymore. There's a degree of edginess about this, which wasn't there in 2022. But war with Russia is what the Europeans now are all about. That is their obsessive, single-minded focus. They're talking about it all the time. And the other thing that is making them nervous, by the way, is that they're getting extremely frustrated that the European public isn't mobilizing behind it.

Not because the European public doesn't accept a lot of the narrative about Ukraine. overwhelmingly they accept the story. You know, Russia launched this unprovoked war. The Putin is this evil man who gets up in the morning and does these things. It's that the Europeans, the European people, the male population of Europe, at the end of the day, does not want to get to join up and to join this show. there isn't this flood of young men joining the recruiting, joining up in the armies that they were expecting. There's not any sign of this economic boom in the military industries that they were hoping for. So there is this nervousness about the state of Europe itself.

And again, one of the reasons why they are affirming all of this all the time, where they're shouting it, all the time, is that again, they hope that if eventually the European people will hear this, and to the extent that they're not hearing this, that's making them want to shout louder and louder and louder. Yeah, I agree. Give it some more time and we'll figure out how to get the European men to the front line to fight Russia. But we need to figure it out. And that's where Gavin Newsom came in, actually.

When you think about it, Gavin Newsom's message to the Europeans was, just hold on for three more years. We're going to get into office after Trump. And then we're with you again, like Biden was. So that was Newsom's message to the Europeans. Just hold on. And so the Europeans' message is, yes, we want war with Russia. We need to prepare for war with Russia. This is what we're all about now.

This is what the EU is about. This is what the UK is about. but we're going to need some more time. So Ukraine, keep on fighting. Give us, give us the two, three years that we need to figure things out, to figure out our industry, to figure out how to make tanks. Ursula talked about the mutual defense clause 42-7 in the EU, which is basically like NATO's Article 5. They need the time and they're telling Ukraine to just keep on fighting. Keep on biting and bias the time that we need.

And we need to figure out how to get the citizens of Europe to the front lines when we're ready to go. This is something that's bothering them. And hopefully they get to the Gavin Newsom. That's what they're thinking. That was Gavin Newsom's message. Well, yes, indeed, because you see, this is the other thing that steep down is probably causing them the further worry. Because all of this talk about mobilization and preparing for war with Russia. The actual physical realities, the hard realities on the ground is that in military terms, Europe

is actually going backwards. Deindustrialization in Germany is intensifying. The attempts to increase military production are not succeeding. The Europeans, the German-French attempt to agree on a joint fighter jet program has apparently collapsed. So ultimately, one of the reasons that they're shrieking about all of this, they're talking all about this all the time, is mobilise the European public, which is seemingly resistant to all of this, and then in the end get the Americans back in. Because without the Americans,

they know perfectly well, this can't be done. And this is the further reason why when Rubio talks in this way, centering everything on American interests. I mean, I don't personally think they are true American interests, but American interests expanding the American Empire, but not showing really very much interest in European concerns. That makes them nervous too. Yeah. That's why you have Newsom there. That's why you have AOC there. That's why you bring Hillary Clinton to this event. You need to send the message. to the Europeans. Yes.

Hold on for three more years because this group of people, this Biden group of people, we're going to be coming back. And when we come back, we're there with you to go to war with Russia. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. All right. We'll end the video there.

The durand.com. We are on Rumble, Telegram, and X. Go to Durand shop pick up some merch and also check us out on substack. The link to our substack is in the scripture box. down below. Take care.