The Duran Podcast - EU To Ukraine Loan Debacle, Plugging Up Holes

Episode Date: September 22, 2024

EU To Ukraine Loan Debacle, Plugging Up Holes

All right, Alexander, let's talk about financing Project Ukraine, why they want to continue to throw away their money into Project Ukraine. Beats me, but, well, okay, we know why. Why they want to continue financing Ukraine. I have some theories about the 300 billion frozen assets. My hunch, Alexander, is that they've already started to dip into the 250 or 300 billion that is in Brussels. my feeling is that they've already started to dip into that money and take that money. But anyway, that's, I think you're probably willing. Yeah.

So we have, let's see, we have the 50 billion loan, which is kind of this loan with the U.S. and the EU. You'll get into the details of this 50 billion. This was actually hatched. This idea for 50 billion loan was, I believe, like maybe six months ago or even a year ago. It was when they came up with this 50 billion loan to, to, to, to, Ukraine between the U.S. and the EU, a joint loan. And now you have talk of this new loan, which is a plan B if the 50 billion loan falls apart, which is anywhere between a 20 billion loan to a 40 billion loan, 100 percent from the European Union to Ukraine. Now, playing in all of this

is hungry. And they're stopping of the 50. billion loan and the EU is now saying let's go to plan B and put together a 20 to 40 billion loan because of Hungary but wait a minute maybe we can still figure out ways to get this 50 billion US EU loan through so they're trying to figure out ways to get money to project credit and of course just to wrap up my my intro to this of course all of these loans are going to be paid with the 1.5 billion in interest generated from the 300 billion in Russian frozen assets in Brussels in Euroclear. That interest is paying for a lot of stuff.

I mean, it's paying for everything, that interest. Even though it's only $1.5 billion, it seems to be paying for everything that is being given to Ukraine, which brings me back to my hunch, which is that they're already starting to dip into the principle. Yeah, I... That is frozen. Anyway, your thoughts.

On the first point, you're absolutely right. When I first looked at the story a couple of days ago, I did a program about he's on my channel. I was thinking about exactly the point I think that you've been making, which is that the interest is not enough to cover the cost of the loan that they were talking about. They must be dipping into the principle. You know, I don't know that for a fact, but I cannot see how the maths can work otherwise. If you think about what the cost of this loan, the original $50 billion loan was going to be.

Now, let's just talk about this $50 billion loan because a lot of, misunderstandings about this. And I should say that this loan has changed form and shape with almost every iteration. The idea, the person who I understand first came up with this idea was Janet Yellen. Now, she was the same person who came up with the idea of the oil cap, the oil price gap. We know how successful that was. Anyway, her plan, her idea was, we tap the interest, we go for a $50 billion loan. The original idea was that the $50 billion loan should be floated on the international money markets. I distinctly remember this. So it was going to be a loan flotation with bonds, which people would buy, you know, you'd be invited

to buy these bonds, the bonds would be paid. You'd have a secure income flow from the interest from the Russian frozen assets. And because there was always a question about the legality of the freezing the assets and the legality about the interest as well, the European Union would have to provide

100% guarantees. Quite how that was going to be done, how the guarantees were to be shared out between the member states was never fully explained, but the EU states would provide the guarantees so that if the frozen assets were unfrozen, if the interest stopped, if a court decision went against, there wouldn't be a problem. The bondholders would still be safe because the guarantees of the EU would still be there. Now, I get the sense that at some point, at some point over the last couple of months, that original concept began to crack. And reading again that Financial Times article, my impression now is that the idea of floating the loan,

and offering bonds has essentially been abandoned, that they now realize the bondholders are not prepared, that people are not prepared to buy, you know, the international, people in the international money markets, the pension funds, the high net worth individuals, all of those people, would not be prepared to buy bonds for this sort of loan, even with the guarantees that the loan is, looks far too insecure. there are issues of legality.

There's the question about whether the assets can be frozen at all. There's questions about whether the interest can be used in this way. There's been all kinds of problems. There's never really been discussed in the media. But it looks as if the idea now with this original $50 billion loan is that the actual lenders, are going to be Western governments again. The Western governments, which means, by the way,

that parliaments across the West have to actually vote to pass, to authorise this loan. Western governments should be the ones who provide the $15 billion. Again, it's not clear exactly how it's going to be justified. Of course, we're talking about a period of, of economic pressure, budgetary pressure, right across the West. And again, the Americans are apparently saying, obviously we're going to have to be paid out of the interest.

As you correctly said, the interest isn't enough. But there's still legal questions about this. The same legal questions that scared off the bondholders are possibly going to scare off Congress, which would have to authorise a loan of this kind. So we still want those EU guarantees.

And it's looking as if several member states and I'm guessing not just Hungary or people across Europe, the various member states, are cooling about this idea of giving the guarantees because it's going to

they know that the risks of doing this are too high. So what do you do if you're the EU? You don't, of course, come along and say that it's because of the legalities, the legal problems. You do what they always do, which is blame hungry, say that it's all done. He is the man. He is the person who's to blame. He is single-handedly stopping this great, wonderful, prodigious, amazing scheme from being executed.

So they're actually now moving to the next plan, which isn't really plan B. is Plan C, because they've gone from a loan that was going to be floated on the money markets so that there would have been no appropriation by Western governments. I mean, that's the key thing, to a loan where Western governments would have themselves provided the money. They're now, but, you know, guaranteed, they're now coming up with Plan C, which is that you can't do this. so you're going to simply go and provide a much smaller loan. They're saying 40 billion euros,

but in practice it's more likely to be something like 20 billion euros. And it's going to be raised and paid by EU member states. And it's going to be paid back from the interest. but there are not going to be any loan guarantees because they can't be. The legal position is too difficult. So that's where I think we are. And as you absolutely correctly said, I think they're trying to balance the books by drawing on the capital.

Again, I want to stress, I don't have that information. You don't, but it's the only way that you can make the, well, it's not just a hunch. It's the only way that the maths can work because the interest just isn't enough. I would say even for the 20 billion euro loan. And I'm going to drawing on what you've just said, I'm going to suggest something even further

that the loan that the EU is talking about might even be intended in some way if Ukraine goes down at some point over the next few months. to do what people should not do, which is to pay back some of that capital, which has been quietly... You just... One credit card funding another. One credit card funding another, exactly.

So there you go. So that's where we are. As I said, it's a complicated and involved story. But we could see how this whole idea, the original $50 billion, blown idea, which as I distinctly remember, was all going to be floated on the international markets. That's clearly not worked. So they're now moving, they're coming up, they're moving from one idea to the next idea to the third idea. They're trying one way or the other to square the circle to keep some money going to Ukraine, perhaps as you correctly said to,

sort out the problems with their credit card if I can sort of like that to make the accounts look sweet and to avoid further legal problems you know what else has me very suspicious about the going into the capital and the 1.5 billion in interest in having that pay everything that the collective West wants to do

with regards to loans to Ukraine The fact that they're pushing to make it so that the freezing of the capital from the European Union is not voted on. It's not right now it's voted every six months to agree to refreece, to continue to freeze the $300 billion. They want to make it so that it's voted on every 36 months. Yes. That to me tells me that they would like to make this. this monitoring of the 300 billion go away for a couple of years so they can kind of replenish everything and balance, try to balance the principle in the books.

That is exactly right. Yeah. That is exactly right. Now, that is interesting as well, because of course, they're now talking about, as you correctly say, 36 months, instead of six months. But a couple of, about two weeks ago, they were talking about something. completely different. They were saying a permanent freezing of the assets, a resolution to have the assets frozen permanently with occasional reviews in which a decision would be discussed

about whether or not possibly to unfreeze the assets. Now that would have required a unanimous vote by the EU to unfreeze the assets, which, as we know, You know, it will never happen because the Baltic states, Poland, stop, Sweden, one of these hardline countries would almost certainly have objected. Now, that idea has been dropped. We've now gone to the 36 months, which strongly suggests exactly what you said, that they don't really want the question of what's happening to the capital to be looked at too closely.

And they want to postpone any consideration of this, for at least three years so that the money can be topped up in the meantime. That's the last, that last is of course, I'll guess. So my final question to you is

this money really doesn't do anything for Ukraine and for project Ukraine. This is really all about the EU and the EU trying to square its books. Right? I mean, correct? Is it? I suspect.

It's not going to go to the people of Ukraine or to Ukraine. or to Ukraine. I strongly suspect you're right about the EU needing to balance its books. But one thing I can absolutely say with categorical certainty is that none of this money,

even if all these loans are authorized, is going to end up in the pockets of the people of Ukraine. Just to add, there is now been an almighty row between the EU and the international. National Monetary Fund. The IMF is now coming, is now clearly keen to wind down its own

overexposure to Project Ukraine. As we discussed in a recent program, they've come to the Ukrainians and they've said, look, if you want more loans from us, we shouldn't have given you these loans anyway. It was completely contrary to our rules. We were strong armed into doing it by the Western powers. But anyway, we've done it. We're now very, very exposed. So we're now finally imposing really, really tough conditions, which we know you can never honor. But that's already one thing that's problematic. But they've also told the EU, and they've told everybody, that they want to reestablish connections with the Russians. They want to send a delegation to Moscow. They want to start talking to the Russians again, discussing with

the Russians, the state of the Russian economy, all of those things. Now, Now the moment it was suggested, that suggestion was made. There was absolute uproar in EU capitals. And of course, if people have been dipping their money into the actual capital, the frozen capital, of the Russian assets, you can see why. because if the IMF and the Russians start talking to each other, then the Russians can ask the IMF, can you please find out what is happening to our frozen capital in Eurocliffe? Because we remain a Paris club member, I believe.

So, you know, it's part of our overall financial position. And the IMF might have to in that case. you know, come back to the Europeans and ask, well, you know, what exactly is happening with these frozen acids? Are they all still there? Can we have a look at the books? The whole thing stinks. Yeah, the whole thing's very fishy. Okay. Let's, uh, let's... Well, it's not so... I mean, one's seen things like this happen many times. Yeah, well... It's interesting when they happen at this level, but...

Exactly, exactly. It's interesting when it's the, the countries that are lecturing us about the rules-based international order and anti-corruption and stuff like that. When it's happening from when it's coming from these people that are doing the lecturing, that's, yeah, that makes it all the more interesting.

Just to finish, I mean, if any of these loans are authorized, if any of this money goes to Ukraine, it is not going to go directly to the Ukrainian people. It is going to be used to close the books on all sorts of transactions. Yeah. that are open before arms purchases other sorts of things before project ukraine goes down exactly everybody knows it's going down now yeah all european western capitals have figured out over the last

couple of weeks that ukraine is going down they know it yeah oliv shultz is not talking so much about project ukraine as he used to he talks about it but not the way he used to Italy is is obviously trying to take a step back from Project Ukraine. Macron, just six months ago, Macron was talking about sending troops to Crimea. He's shut up. He has his own problems, of course, in France. I noticed that Annalina Berbach has kind of disappeared.

Robert Hobbock, not a word from Hobbock. Even Ursula, even Ursula and Borrell are very quiet when it comes to the project of Ukraine. Much more reticent than they used to be. Yeah. All right. We will end the video there. the durand.locos.com. We are on Rumble Odyssey, bitch, shoot, telegram, Rockfin, and Twitter X,

and go to the Duran shop, pick up some merch, like the shirts that we are wearing today in this video. The link is in the description box down below. Take care.