The Duran Podcast - Fantasy Davos peace talks. Ukraine raising $300B reparation bonds

Episode Date: January 16, 2024

Fantasy Davos peace talks. Ukraine raising $300B reparation bonds

All right, Alexander, let's talk about what is going on in the conflict in Ukraine and what is going on in Davos. So we could start the video off by talking about the alleged downing, the shooting down or shooting act, depending on what story you believe of the I.O. 22 and the 850. And then we can go over to Davos and talk about the Zelensky delegation at Davos, this peace summit, these peace talks that are taking place without Russia. And we could talk about reparation bonds. Reparation bonds. That's how you get the 300 billion. Anyway, let's start off with the IEL 22 and the A50s. then we could travel over to Davos.

Yeah. I mean, this is an interesting story because, of course, it's all over the media here in Britain and to some extent, at least in the United States and in Europe. Things have been going very badly for Ukraine over the last couple of weeks. The Avdavka thing is, I mean, the New York Times is talking about a slow encirclement. The New York Times says that Marinka has almost full. This is an article that appeared a couple of days ago, but of course we actually know that it has

fallen. Things are not going well for Ukraine on the battlefronts. The Russian missile attacks on Ukraine are becoming utterly devastating. And the Ukrainian air defense system has to all intents and purposes collapsed. There was another big missile strike, well, big-ish missile strikes. 37 missiles were launched by Russia at Ukraine on the 13th of January. Notice that the Russians now are launching attacks on Ukraine with missiles every five days. Well, we'll see how that goes on for. But anyway, they launched a bigish attack with 37 missiles on the 13th of January. The Ukrainians admitted that they were only able to shoot down eight. Eight out of 37. Now, historically, they've always claimed that they shot down 95% or whatever it was that the missiles launched. Now, suddenly they're

admitting that they can't shoot down most of these missiles. Almost certainly, undoubtedly now, they are telling us the truth. It looks like the Patriots and all of those are failing to shoot down the hypersonic missiles. Gingals, we always knew this was true. They're failing to shoot down the ballistic missiles. They can't shoot down. the supersonic missiles. Every so often they're able to shoot down one of the, some of the subsonic missiles, but even there, quite a few of them get through. And they're being hammered. Their air defense system is collapsing. The military industrial complex is collapsing. Everything is going badly wrong. So we have to have good news. And this is the imperative for Ukraine. It's more

important almost than anything else. If you are losing on the battlefronts, if you're losing in the air, you have to come change the narrative. You've got to get the media to talk about something else. So the day, yeah, the day before yesterday, yesterday, we have the story that the IL-22, which is an electronic reconnaissance aircraft, basically. It's basically there to sort of It's a spy plane. And much more importantly, an A-50 AWACS aircraft. This is a big, powerful radar, you know, aircraft with a massive radar that the Russians operate. It's able to monitor the airspace over Ukraine to an extraordinary degree that these two aircraft were shot down in one day over the Sea of Azov. Now, there was an attack on the Elyushin 22, because we've got pictures of the aircraft. We've seen that it landed safely.

We've seen that there's shrapnel holes in the fin, so it was clearly damaged. It wasn't, however, shot down. And so already that part of the original Ukrainian story is demonstrably, Untrue. What about the much bigger aircraft, the A50? There is absolutely no... But the IOL was shot at. That's what you're shot. Something hit. Something hit the aisle. Exactly. There's no doubt something hit it, but it wasn't shot down. Ukraine originally claimed that it was shot down. We know that it was not shot down. So the crew survived. The plane is damaged. Probably.

the plane can be repaired. There's no reason why he can't be repaired despite what the Ukrainians are saying, but he's landed. So already we know part of the Ukrainian story there is not true. But what about the other much bigger, far more powerful aircraft, the A50? We have no evidence one way or the other. The Kremlin has issued a statement, so they have no information about the loss of aircraft, which to me, amounts to a denial. The Guardian, by the way, in London, took that statement by the Russians and the Kremlin and said that the Russians

have, that they twisted it and they said that the Kremlin has no information about how these two aircraft was shot down, which is completely not what the Kremlin said, just to say. but the Kremlin in effect is denying that they were shot done. I mean, I'm sure that if two big aircraft like this had been shot down, the Kremlin would certainly know and I would certainly have been briefed about it.

So the Kremlin has basically issued a denial. And Ukraine has provided no evidence, nothing that I would call evidence showing that this aircraft, was indeed shot down in the way that they say that it was. Now, they provided a graphic, a sort of map, which shows, you know, aircraft moving around. They say that this shows the radar traces, and you see, you know, two traces living across the board

and both of them suddenly disappearing. And that is supposed to be the proof that these aircraft, were shot down. It is not proof. It is nothing. It is a graphic and nothing else. So we have no evidence to support this story. All that we can say is that the Kremlin is denying it. Now, I think that's all one can say. And I am really astonished that after the ghost of Kiev, the, you know, the redeployment from Marupol, the victory at Snake Island, all of these stories that we've had spun in the past. People are so willing to assume these Ukrainian claims are true when we have no evidence that they are. Now, that doesn't mean that an A50 was not shot down, but I just don't think we're.

know. All we know is that the Ukrainians are claiming that it was and that the Kremlin is denying it. If the Kremlin is denying it, by the way, Kremlin is usually very conservative in its statements that rather suggests that it didn't happen. Right. Okay, before we get to Davos, and this may all be connected to Davos, by the way, this narrative that's being spun, is conveniently timed, right, when you have this Ukraine delegation in Davos or Zelensky himself traveling to Davos and they're going to go there to raise money and weapons and have this peace talk summit. So the timing of it right there should make everybody very suspicious about the story. But let's let's just say that this is true about the A50. My question to you and the IEL 22, let's just say that there is some truth to Ukraine's

claim, does Zillusionis claim? What does it mean for Russia? What does it mean if the IEL was shot at by Ukraine? And what does it mean if Ukraine managed to down an A50? I would imagine that this is an operation. My hunch would be that this, if there is a kernel of truth to this, this wouldn't be an operation that Ukraine would be able to undertake without the collective West NATO, the U.S. or the U.K., behind the scenes providing pretty much everything in order to accomplish this. But does this, for example, does this throw Russia off its current trajectory or its SMO operation and goals? I mean, what exactly, if there is truth to this, what does this mean for the Russian military? Right, right. Well, to anticipate, to go to your last point, no, it doesn't. It does not change

the overall direction of the war. I mean, I think this is. the first thing to say. The A50 is a very big, very expensive, very advanced aircraft. Russia does have more, and I've seen some claims that they only have eight of these things. This is certainly not true. They have more than that. What they have is eight A50 U's. These are even more advanced versions of this aircraft, but they probably have around a score of them altogether. they can certainly replace one. So, no, it does not change the trajectory of the operation. What it shows, if this happens, first of all, it would be a blow, though.

I mean, it would be the loss of a significant air asset. But it's something that shows that Ukraine and the West are being forced to take more and more risks with their vital equipment. because how was it done? We know that an IL-22 was hit over the Sea of Azov. So there is a kernel of truth to this story in that the Ukrainians were able to bring surface-to-air missiles to the point where they were able to strike at targets in the Sea of Azov. That can only have happened if the Ukrainians were bringing Patriot missiles right up to the line, the conflict line. Very, very close to the conflict line. They're trying to move

big, heavy, complex, powerful patriot missiles, not very mobile systems, close to the conflict line. They tried to do this a couple of weeks ago in Herzogne region, where they may have shot down one, SU34. They have tried to do it again, perhaps, on this occasion. But of course, they are risking their most important air defence assets. The Patriot missile is in short supply. The United States is struggling to supply Ukraine with replacement interceptors. What Ukraine is doing is it's risking its best air defense system in order to score high profile big publicity wins over the Russians. And there are lots of reports and they appear to be true that after the previous, you know, movements of a Patriot missile system to Herson region, which, you know, was used to shoot down at least one,

SU 34. The Russians found out where it was, caught it as it was being loaded onto a train, destroyed the entire system, killed the operators. So that was a disastrous loss for Ukraine, much bigger loss than what it achieved. And it's the same with this operation now. It's risky, it is reckless, and of course, it's also risky and reckless on the part of the actions of the Western powers because in order to track the movement of these big Russian aircraft to know where they are over the Sea of Azov or anywhere else, Ukraine has to rely to a great extent on information provided by NATO, by global hawk drones and all of those kind of things. And of course, they're now participating even more actively in the conflict. And one does wonder how much longer it will be

that the Russians put up with this sort of thing and whether in fact they decide to declare an air exclusion zone over the Black Sea. Bear in mind, they have, they can do that, they have the capability to do that and start shooting these things down if they appear over the Black Sea as well. I think we are probably closer to that point than we have been previously, because, as I said, it's clear that the Ukrainians did trundle this big, you know, missile system close to the contact line. And the Russians will now be hunting it and might soon destroyed. Right, right. Okay, so the timing of all of this coincide with Davos. we have the peace talk peace summit that is taking place on olenski's 10 point peace plan which is effectively

a plan for Russian capitulation. That's what the 10 point peace plan is. And you have this delegation of politicians and diplomats and people around 80, 83 people gathered together in Davos to discuss this peace plan. Of course, one key component is missing. from this peace plan that that is Russia. Anyway, let's get into this story. And then we'll also talk about bond, reparation bond, which is very interesting. Yeah, indeed. Well, this, of course, starts.

There was that, it's the latest in a sequence of meetings which were kicked off. I think it was in August. There was a meeting. I think it was in Copenhagen when basically Jake Sullivan contacted national security advisors from various countries, excluding Russia itself. He brought them together at a meeting in Copenhagen, and the idea was that he would try to get them to rally around Zelensky's 10-point peace plan. Now, the 10-point police plan that Zelensky has outlined,

and which the Western countries have boxed themselves into supporting, basically requires Russia to pull out all its troops from all the territory in that was Ukrainian between 1991 and 2014, including Crimea, essentially accept Ukrainian sovereignty over all of this territory. And then if that happens, the Ukrainians might sit down and agree to talk with the Russians, though it's not clear about what they would talk about, presumably further terms for Russia's unconditional surrender. The Russians have consistently rejected this. Plan, peace plan, which isn't a peace plan at all. It is a surrender plan. Now, the original summit meeting in, I think, as I said, Copenhagen in August, was clearly timed for the

presumed success of Ukraine's summer offensive. The assumption was that four weeks on, the Ukrainians would be, you know, literally on the border of Crimea. The land bridge to Crimea would have been pierced. The Russians would have suffered this cataclysmic defeat. And the idea is you bring together all of these global South countries, you get them to support Zelensky's plan in the circumstances of a clear-cut Russian military defeat. And you present the Russian, you present the Russians with an ultimatum, you get them to agree to this peace plan, or else, you know, there will be a attack on Crimea itself, presumably. That was the original plan. I mean, I think that's not difficult to work out. Of course, things turned out otherwise. The summer offensive, far from being

victorious, was defeated, as we have discussed many times, the countries that came together in Copenhagen, the global south countries, China, India, Brazil and all the others were completely unimpressed by this peace plan. And they said to the Americans and to the Ukrainians, look, this isn't going to fly. You've got to start talking to the Russians. Well, Sullivan has to keep at least the impression that the United States is trying to keep some kind of of diplomatic process alive because it's important to do that in order to try and keep some kind of situation where the global south countries don't go over completely to the Russian side and start voting for Russian-backed resolutions on the Ukrainian crisis in the General

Assembly. So we've had a succession of other meetings bringing together the same people, or rather bringing again the various national security advisors. All of those meetings have ended in failure. The last meeting, the previous meeting, which was in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, was apparently a complete disaster. Brazil, China, the United Arab Emirates stayed away. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and India said, this isn't a viable plan.

It doesn't make any kind of sense. What you must do is start negotiations with the Russians. So again, they're not giving up. They've had this other meeting now in Davos. And of course, they timed this meeting in Davos in advance of the meeting of the World Economic Forum. because they know that various people, important people from various countries are going to go to Davos anyway, because they want to attend the meeting of the World Economic Forum. So the result is the turnout this time has been a bit bigger, in fact, has been bigger than in Riyadh.

This has enabled, you know, a photo study to be put together. But the outcome is exactly the same. These people are saying, look, what you're proposing doesn't make any kind of sense. Talk to the Russians, which is, of course, precisely what the Ukrainians won't do and what the Biden administration is afraid to do. So the result is a complete process that is at complete standstill and which, in my opinion, is now starting to reach the point of collapse. China, as I said, is now boycotting the entire thing. And without China, none of this makes sense. India is becoming deeply skeptical.

Modi had a very friendly conversation with Putin over the phone just the day before yesterday. The Lula disliked Zelensky intensely after being stood up for that meeting with him in Tokyo. He's unimpressed. Brazil is staying away, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the others are becoming more and more critical. I think that before very long, we're going to see that this whole process is just really going to start to fade out. Yeah, Turkey boycotted the whole Davos, W-E-F, over what's going on in the conflict of the war in Israel. There you go. Exactly.

But they're going to stay away from the whole thing. So, you know, they have a clever plan at least how to get to the 300 billion in Russian frozen assets. And this one, this is an incredible scheme. This is a scheme that they are putting together reparation bonds. Reuters reported on this. Let's talk about reparation bonds. This is the craziest scheme of all. It is a lunatic scheme.

It really does make me wonder what lawyers they are talking to, because they apparently think that this is going to provide them with some kind of legally foolproof way to basically seize or use Russian assets to keep the war going. In fact, in fact, it actually, legally speaking, puts them on even weaker ground than simply sees you get passing a law. and seizing the assets would do. Let's just explain what the idea is. So the idea is that Ukraine funds its war by issuing bonds. And as collateral for these bonds, it uses the Russian frozen assets. This is presumably in anticipation of Ukraine becoming victorious in the end. and, you know, being able to get reparations from the Russians.

And it apparently is acknowledged that private investors are going to be very wary of buying these bonds. So the idea is that central banks will do it. It would be mainly central banks that will be buying these bonds. Now, I am just going to read the English definition, the British English, common law definition of theft as set out in section one of the theft act. So it says a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it and thief and steel shall be construed accordingly. And we've had the key word there is appropriation and English legal definitions, including in the

theft act, make it clear that appropriation is using another's property as your own. Well, isn't this exactly what this is proposing? Ukraine is going to issue bonds and it's going to cite as collateral the property of another country which is to say Russia which is not agreed to allow its property to be used

as collateral in that way. I mean that is clearly an appropriation of someone else's property in order to borrow against it. In fact, I could tell you, there is huge amounts of precedent on this kind of thing. Whenever it happens, it happens.

I mean, borrowing against someone else's property, using someone else's property without their permission as security, that is clearly a dishonest appropriation. It has to be dishonest because the other side, I've not agreed to it. And of course, you're doing it with the intention of permanently depriving the other party of it. So it is theft.

It's straightforward with theft. And it is asking Western Central banks to launder the money on behalf of Ukraine by buying these bonds. I mean, it makes them accessories to this act of theft. It also means, by the way, because if Ukraine doesn't, win its war and doesn't get the Russians to agree to it. Not only would the central banks be committing an act of theft themselves and become accessories to this act of theft under English law, but of course they would in effect be printing money in the meantime in support of Ukraine. So I mean this is this is so crazy. It is ridiculous. If you actually pass the law saying,

you know, the we don't accept that these asses, assets really belong to Russia anymore because we think that, you know, this aggression against Ukraine, this, you know, is property that the Russians aren't entitled to any longer. Well, that might not be defendable, but it is more defendable than this, because if you use someone else's property as collateral, you are acknowledging that that property belongs to that other person. It acknowledges that these assets are Russian assets. So it actually makes the whole situation, legally speaking, even worse. So as I said, this is so crazy, so stupid that I really do ask myself, what legal advice are they getting? It's so risky.

It's so dumb and risky that I don't even think Ukraine would be able to, to get 300 billion, even from the central banks of countries. I mean, no one's going to get any return on these bonds if Ukraine doesn't win. So, I mean, this is throwing away money while at the same time committing just a slimy, schemy, and I would even say sad and pathetic action against Russia's frozen assets. I mean, this is pretty sad. When you take a step back and look at what they've thought up, it's not only stupid, it really, really is sad.

This is like low-level criminal stuff. That is absolutely. That is exactly what it is. As I said, it is using Russian assets as collateral, accepting that they're not actually, you know, that they're still, that they're still Russian assets and doing it without Russia's position in order in effect to appropriate them. I mean, it is, it is, it is the sleazyest, stupidest act of straightforward. It's like a Ponzi scheme, isn't it?

It's a way. It is like that, except, of course, there's some Ponzi criminals are a bit more sophisticated. investigated than this because at least, at least in that sort of case, there is an element of concealment. In this case, there is none. Everybody can see it. Now, as I said, what the central banks are going to make of this, I really wonder. I mean, I think they must be absolutely livid that they are being drawn into this whole. Ridiculous thing.

But, you know, arm twisting goes on. Of course, you have Christine Lagarde in charge of the ECB, which is probably the person. is going to be, you know, stonking up the most bonds. And perhaps you'll do it. I mean, I don't know. But, I mean, you know, at so many levels, this is so grubby, sleazy and bad. As I said, it's, it's legally speaking, as I said, even less defendable. It's simply going out and seizing them.

Because you are acknowledging that these assets are right. Russian. So I mean, I just, as I said, I do wonder what, what actual advice, what who is exactly providing the legal advice upon which the governments in the West are making decisions. I'm very curious to see if this actually goes through this plan, this scheme, if they actually get this to move forward. I'm very curious to see what. countries are going to actually participate in this. That's how you're going to know which countries truly have the dumbest leadership on the planet, are the countries that are going to actually go along with this scheme. I mean, you got to imagine that a serious country and any

remotely serious leadership, a serious central bank, a serious financial system would stay away from this thing. Like, we'd be miles. We'd distance itself miles away from this, from this scheme. But who knows? Maybe they'll get the Europeans to go along with this. I don't know. Maybe the Europeans thought this up. I have no idea. Who knows who thought you know? I mean, to me, it has, to be honest, frankly, the fingerprints of Jake Sartland and some of the geniuses in London all over this is the kind of absurdity and the silly ideas that the, you know, sort of people come up with. I mean, they think they're being very clever.

In fact, they are being totally stupid. And I think this is, you know, this is, you know, what do I know? And, you know, with geniuses like Robert Harbeck and Ursula von der Leyen, Annalina Behrbock, in charge of things in Europe. And of course, Christine Lagarde, let's not forget her. I mean, with these geniuses in charge as well,

you know, it might be coming from them also. But I have to say again, there will be a lot of people in the central banks when there are some very clever people. I mean, central banks have to have clever people. You may not like them. You may think they're the most appalling institutions ever created. But there's no doubt that there are clever people working in the central banks. Some of them are going to be absolutely horrified by this idea. As I said, effectively printing money to support Ukraine because that's what they'll be doing. and secondly, engaging in money laundering, because that's what it amounts to, legally speaking. Central banks, the central banks of the West. It's a brave new world that the collective West is entering into. Very, very interesting times. I'm going to take out a loan, Alexander, and I'm going to put my neighbor's house up for collateral. Absolutely.

Yeah, well, why don't you do that? I mean, that's a great idea. After all, this is, and, you know, you can take out this loan and, you know, you can get somebody to print money for you. It seems to be a perfect scheme. It will work out fantastically. And, you know, you don't need to worry because, as I said, it's legally for-proof. Unbelievable stuff. Oh, just when you think you've seen it all.

Here you go. I know. You know, one more final thought. One more final thought on a serious note. They've got a month till the two-year, Adam. of the special military operation. They're trying to figure out something to cook up so they can mark the event. You know what I mean? This is their thinking. Everything is about narrative. And so they're really stretching with this reparation bonds thing. But you can tell that they

really want to make a big announcement on February 24th, 2024. Yes. Yeah, absolutely. That's exactly correct. I mean, there are reports, by the way, that the Russians are now putting together a legal team to contest all of this. It'd be interesting to see, by the way, where the lawyers come from. I mean, there's been lots of pressure on law firms, I happen to know, in Britain at least, not to work for Russian clients and even the Russian government. So they may have problems there, but since I suspect the claim would be brought first and foremost in the International Court of justice, because this would be the state versus state thing. Just saying, there are probably international law firms which are not Western based, which might be prepared to present it,

and which undoubtedly nowadays do have the expertise to. So we'll just have to see. All right. We will let it there. The durand.com. We are on Rumble, odyssey, butchute, telegram, Rockfin, and Twitter X, and go to the Duran Shop, 50. 15% of all t-shirts. Take care.