The Duran Podcast - Fico in Moscow. Orban, 'Europe lost conflict in Ukraine'

Episode Date: December 23, 2024

Fico in Moscow. Orban, 'Europe lost conflict in Ukraine'

All right, Alexander, let's talk about what's going on in Russia, in Ukraine, in the U.S. In Slovakia, we have the Prime Minister of Slovakia traveling to Moscow to meet with Putin. What are your thoughts? Well, I'm going to say there's a sudden big burst of diplomatic activity, and I think many of these moves are clearly being co-ordinated. I think that we can now start to say that we're entering the end game. because again, over the last couple of hours, I think Trump has clarified very clearly what he wants to do. But to say it straightforwardly, Fizo is in Moscow.

He went there yesterday. Yesterday, he had a meeting with Putin. If you go to the Kremlin website, they have provided the barest readout. They're not saying anything at all about what Fetso said. Peskov, who's Putin spokesman, has implied that it was all about gas transit issues and energy questions. I don't believe that. I think that just as Orbán has been phoning Putin acting as some kind of intermediary between the Russians and Trump. I think Fetzo, who at the moment is perhaps rather less exposed than all.

because Orban has an actions next year and he's facing political challenges in Hungary. I think he's gone to Moscow for a personal meeting with Putin. They're clearly talking about Ukraine and the situation in Ukraine. And they're clearly looking for some way to move this thing forward. And Fidzor went to Moscow for that reason. He could have discussed energy matters by phone. the fact that he's gone to Moscow is clearly because he wants to have a personal meeting with Putin so that information can be conveyed to Trump via FISA in a way that people won't be able to listen

into. We won't have problems of other people, you know, listening into the discussions and trying to work out what's happening. So that's why FItso is there. And Trump, for huge, His part is now talking about a summit meeting with Putin. The Kremlin says that they have no information yet about how that's going to be organized, but it looks as if Trump wants a meeting with Putin as soon as possible after his inaugurated president of the United States. So sometime around late January, we might actually see a meeting between Putin and Trump. Orban said in an interview, I believe a radio interview the other day, Europe has lost the conflict

in Ukraine despite attempts to deny it. This is the English translated quote that I have for Arban. I can't confirm it 100%, but this is the quote that's making the rounds. Europe has lost the conflict in Ukraine. I think that's an interesting way of framing it. He's absolutely right, because in our previous program, we were discussing all the complicated plots, conspiracies, plans that various European leaders are coming up with, ideas about sending peacekeeping forces to Ukraine, attempts to organize freezes and ceasefires and all of those kind of things. And we were saying that clearly what they're trying to do is to keep the Americans still involved in Ukraine. They want a complicated proposal to come from Trump to Putin, which Putin is going to

reject, and then they're going to say to Trump, look, this is how Putin is treating you, so you've got to continue to press on with the war in Ukraine. I think what Orban is saying, what Fidzu is doing, what Trump himself is signaling in these contexts that he wants to establish, with Putin is that the Europeans have been completely cut out. The war in Ukraine is lost. All of these European schemes and plans are well understood by Trump, his team, the Hungarians, Slovaks, the Russians, and the EU has been completely cut out of the discussions. I think that is consistent with the moves that we have just seen over the last few.

few days. Now, can I just say there's also reports that are coming out from El Pais about a letter that Trump sent to Putin. Now, it's important to say something about El Pais. El Pais is or was the Spain's big newspaper of record. In fact, not just Spain's, but throughout the Spanish-speaking world. To Putin or to Ukraine? Sorry, to Leroy, to Lenzki. He sent it to Ukraine. He sent the letter to to Zelensky, exactly. So El Paiz is, you know, was once the big, you know, newspaper of record, like the New York Times was, like Le Monde used to be, like all of these other newspapers, it has come completely round to the globalist perspective of things. And it is extremely close to the people in Kiev. In fact, it's one of the most closely aligned,

of all the European agencies with Kiev. And they obviously got information about this letter from the Ukrainians. So we are only given one extract, one actual quote from the letter. And the letter is basically Trump telling Zelensky, look, you talk all the time about your lands, the lands are devastated, why do you even want them back? What you should be doing is seeking peace. Now, what this tells us is that Trump is putting pressure on the Ukrainians to negotiate,

or rather to accept that they have lost the wall. And the Ukrainians who are doing everything they possibly can, there was an article in The Guardian just yesterday. We said that Zelensky is briefing, is instructing all his diplomats to work incessantly round the clock on getting Ukraine into NATO. that this is now the instructions that they've been given. What Zelensky is trying to do is he's trying to play the Europeans off against the Americans. He's leaking private letters that sent to him by Trump in order to tell the Europeans

are coming under all this pressure from Trump. Come support me, come help me, because Trump is looking for some way to end the war quickly. So this is the complex game. that is being played now. But ultimately, it is the Americans, it is the Russians who are going to be dealing directly with each other. The Europeans, the only thing they can do

to counter these moves, if these moves are correct, El Paice is correct in this reporting, is to send troops to Ukraine. Yeah. And they're not going to do that without the United States. Correct. Without the U.S. support. Correct.

You're going to get Biden's support in the next three weeks. It's not enough time to send troops, obviously. So that's not going to happen either. And even NATO entry, you're going to run into the issue of Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, most likely blocking Ukraine. You're not going to get a vote right now anyway. Even if Biden comes out tomorrow and says, I approve the United States approves Ukraine,

getting it to NATO. You have to have all of the members of NATO. They have to get together. They have to have a vote. And everyone has to approve Ukraine, getting it to NATO. NATO. I doubt that's going to happen either, not in the next 20 or 30 days. The next NATO meeting is actually slated for June, I believe, of 2025. So that leads me to my next question. What did you make of the Financial Times article, which claims that Trump told, not Trump, not Trump,

you see, I almost fell into the trap. People associated with Trump, we don't know who they are, approached officials in Europe, we don't know who they are, and told them. them that Trump will send weapons to Ukraine, will continue to support Ukraine, as long as EU member states increase their NATO spending to 5% of GDP, but Trump will accept 3.5% in the end. And even the Financial Times, they say that the next meeting where the next NATO meeting where this will be discussed is June 2025. I'm pretty sure that's what the Financial Times says. I don't have the article in front of me. but I'm very confident that was the timeline that they gave.

What do you make of this reporting? Right. In the big picture, everything that we're talking about right now. I mean, briefly, I thought that was quite a concerning article when it first appeared, and it appeared alongside a very, very long article that the Financial Times also published in which they were discussing, again, all the moves to send European peacekeepers to Ukraine and things of that kind. I think that this article was a piece of mischief actually.

what the Financial Times, rather the people who are briefing the Financial Times, who are clearly European officials are trying to do, is link the question of Europe increasing its defense spending to American support for Ukraine. So the Europeans are telling the Americans, or some people in Europe are telling the Americans, look, we will increase defense spending. You want us to increase defense spending. We understand that. But in return, we want you to go on supporting Ukraine. And I think that, in fact, we're increasingly seeing that for the Americans, defense spending, increased defense spending, and arms for Ukraine and all that. are two completely distinct issues. So I think this is coming from Europe. I think they're trying to sort of maneuver Trump, again, into some sort of quid pro quo type situation. You know, we commit to increases in defense spending,

which will never happen, by the way, not in the way that is being suggested. Certainly not to 5%. Even 3.5% is going to be all but impossible to achieve, especially given the economic situation, conditions in Europe. I would say that, as I said, there is really no reality to this quid pro-crow that they're talking about, but they're trying to sell it to the Americans through planting these articles in the Financial Times. The thing to say about the Financial Times is that it is a very, very hard line, basically the conservative newspaper.

I mean, I find that astonishing as well, because it didn't used to be. But it is now. And it has been extremely close to the Biden administration. I mean, it's been publishing information that clearly comes directly from the Biden administration. And it's also very close, I think, to the thinking of the British government, especially the current British government. So you need to be very careful about what is said in the financial times. I don't think that Trump is saying that to the Europeans, or his people are saying that to the Europeans. I think what is probably actually happening is the Trump is saying, his people are saying,

look, if you're really so worried about Ukraine, if you are really so worried about your own security, then increase your defense spending because we are pulling out. We're pulling out of Ukraine and we are going to draw down our forces in Europe. But I cannot imagine, I can't believe that the Americans, or at least the Trump people, are making the one into a condition for the other. I think the Europeans, yeah, the Europeans are making it a condition. Yeah. Trump is saying, Trump is saying increase your defense spending.

Yeah. In general, he's saying increase it. Yes. Ukraine is something you guys need to take care of. But in general, I want you guys to increase your defense spending because it's not fair. The way he views it is it's not fair for the U.S. to spend this amount of money and for you guys to not spend the equivalent amount of money as far as a percentage of GDP. And the Europeans are turning it around and they're using the financial times as the vehicle. They're turning it around to put conditions on Trump's commitment to Ukraine saying, we'll increase our defense spending to X amount if you continue to support Ukraine.

and they're throwing out ridiculous numbers, eventually trying to get to that 3% number, that 3.5% number. Correct. I'm confident this is what's happening because Mitsodakis, the Greek prime minister, put out a statement yesterday, which I thought was very odd. I believe that he was with Kayakalas, if I'm not mistaken. But anyway, his statement was that European countries are going to increase their defense spending. He wanted to assure the United States and Trump that Europe is absolutely going to increase.

going to increase their defense spending. He could have given them out, but he says, we're going to discuss it. And I can tell you, as Prime Minister of Greece, we are going to increase our defense spending. So obviously, they're trying to create some sort of scenario where Trump commits to Ukraine, and then they'll commit to defense spending somewhere down the line.

Correct. That's what's going on. Yeah. The whole absurdity of this is that, of course, if the Americans do really start to draw down, their forces in Europe. And if the Europeans really do believe that Russia is this great threat to them, then they're going to have to increase defense spending anyway.

They can't, though. Because so, I mean, you know, that's the logic of it. I mean, why would Trump, you know, commit to doing something? I mean, he has no reason to make any promises to the Europeans or make any commitments to the Europeans for this kind of reciprocal deal. There's no need for a reciprocal deal for him to get what he wants. Now, Europe is in a weird position in that they can't increase their defense spending. They use Russia as the excuse Russia is going to attack us.

Pistorius is going on and on about how Russia is going to attack Europe. And they keep on talking about increasing their defense spending. They talk about it amongst themselves. When Trump tells them to increase their defense spending, at least with NATO, they get upset with Trump. Now they're using it as some sort of bargaining chip. The European Union, the commission, the council is talking about the EU becoming some sort of a war, turning it into some sort of a war economy. So it's hard to get a feel as to what exactly are you guys getting at.

While at the same time, no country in Europe is prepared to increase the defense spending. They're all in recession. All of them. Every country in Europe is freaking broke. They're beyond broke. Their military is a mess. How are they going to increase their defense spending? How are they going to churn out weapons?

They talk about becoming this continent of churning out all these weapons and becoming this big prosperous continent of weapons manufacturers and the big military industrial complex residing in Europe. It's nonsense. It is absolute nonsense like every single other grand plan that the Europeans have been talking about for the last 30 years. Way back in the early 1990s, I remember they said that through European integration, they would create an economy that was rich. higher living standards, bigger, much bigger than that of the United States. We all know how that ended. And that's only one plan amongst many. They've come up with proposal after proposal, idea after idea.

The reality is they're in debt right up to their ears. Their currency, the euro, is trading increasingly poorly on global markets. There is a fiscal crisis right across Europe. The economy is in deep stagnation. Germany is de-industrializing. Energy costs are rising. And the European public doesn't really believe that there is this great threat from the Russians the people constantly are trying to scare them with.

So this isn't going to happen, and everybody knows it. This is just a fairy tale that is being floated in order to try to keep Trump supplying arms to Ukraine. Exactly. old and fab. They're creating this fairytale in order to keep on getting the U.S. money into Europe. That's it, because they've been living on this money for God knows how many decades. Exactly. Exactly. So final question. What is Trump up to if you had to take a guess? Because something is going on with, not only with Ukraine and in Orban and Fizzo and all these hints at a meeting with Putin. Russia, but you have the issue with Greenland that he said the other day, which I find interesting.

Shipping lanes, shipping lanes in the North Atlantic. That's what we're looking at. That's why he's talking about Greenland. He's talking about the Panama Canal. Shipping lanes as well. He's mentioning China a lot. I know China was looking at, or China does have a presence in Central America, South America. Actually, I was reading that China was also looking at the shipping lanes in Greenland as well at a point in time in 2019. What's the big picture that Trump might be going for here? He's aiming at something with all of these moves.

I don't think this is just sending out messages and threatening this country. And if they're threatening that country and saying, I'm going to buy this, I'm going to buy that. decrease your rates, Panama or else, I mean, he's aiming at something. He's absolutely aiming at something, what he wants to do. And I think this has been, by the way, there, right from the moment that he re-entered politics, entered politics in a serious way back in 2015. He looks at all these enormous commitments, strategic commitments that the United States has taken upon itself around the world.

And the way that's worked into a sort of movement to tie the United States down into sort of global governance and globalist projects and that kind of thing. And he says to himself, America is, none of this is serving the long-term interests of the United States. What he basically wants to do is to bring the United States as far as he can. And I think he's perhaps realistic about this that you can't completely rewind the clock entirely. But he wants to take the United States back to where it was before it started to embrace this vast series of commitments and involvements around the world after the end of the Second World War. wants to return to the situation where the United States looks after itself, fights for its own interests, defends its shipping routes, Panama canals, things of that kind. Remember, the Americans built with Panama Canal. And reverts to the kind of foreign defense and security policies that, in his belief, they had before the Second World War.

That's not to say that he thinks that the US involvement in the Second World War was a mistake, or that the US involvement in the Cold War was a mistake. But the time for all of that, all of that interventionism has ended, and the time has come for the United States to start looking after itself and its own interests and to secure peace, by dealing with those big countries that really matter, China, Russia, obviously, and perhaps India eventually as well. So I think this is being his instinct all along. I don't think he's ever really thought it through in terms of ever having a detailed plan, but he's actually talked about it. He talked about it during the election. He gave this massive interview. Again, people never

pay much attention to the kind of things that Trump actually said. But he made it clear that for him, this sort of optimal presidency was the one that was led by McKinley in 1890s. He had tariffs. He raised funds from tariffs. He protected American industry, that kind of way. And though he was eventually thrown off course through the Cuban America war, McKinley was known to be a skeptic about it and basically wanted the United States to steer clear of involvement in, you know, the detailed events of the world outside. So that is where, that's Trump's instinct. He wants to go back to that style of American governments. The United States focusing on itself, focusing on its own interests, having good relations,

at the major world powers, obviously protecting its real interests where they exist. So the Panama Canal is a real interest of the United States. The shipping lines, shipping lanes around Greenland are a real interest of the United States. They're in a very hard-nosed, tough-minded approach to that kind of thing. But steering clear of all other commitments and certainly not letting your proxies or people who imagine yourself to be your proxies or your allies draw you into conflicts

which really don't concern America, be it Ukraine or Syria, where he's now recently published a message on true social saying the US needs to stay out of Syria, all that kind of thing. We'll see. The alternative to all of this is that he escalates in Ukraine.

That's alternative. Well, exactly. The Europeans fool him. He agrees to go along with the Europeans. He gets bogged down in Ukraine. He begins to escalate. But even in that case, there's only so much the United States can do. Well, exactly.

It cannot win the war without committing U.S. military into Ukraine. Yes. And that doesn't even guarantee them winning the world. Actually, I still believe that Russia will win this war. even if you commit soldiers, do you create NATO soldiers? Russia will still win. But, and that's not going to happen. That's not going to happen.

That's the alternative. And even that is something that the U.S. is not capable of doing at this moment. Absolutely. I mean, I think, I think if the United States were to do a thing like that, it would be Vietnam on steroids. I mean, it would be, it would be not taking on the North Vietnamese. It would be taking on the Russians. and doing so against a certain split within the Republican Party, massive protests in the United States.

I cannot imagine that Trump, if he is anything, he is a very intuitive politician, which his finger on the American political pulse, will ever want to go down that route. So I agree. The choice is between escalation and peace, and all the logic, all the sense, pushes him towards peace. The threat to this, I mean, I think that there are too. Firstly, the Europeans might know, might be able to work on some people within Trump's own team. and try to get them to persuade Trump, that you've got to show strength, you've got to show Putin's strength, you've got to take a tough line with him and all that kind of thing. Putin, by the way,

just to quickly add, has been speaking an awful lot about Ukraine over the last couple of days, and he's made a whole series of speeches and interviews in which he has said absolutely that, you know, as far as he is concerned, June, that what he said back in June, to the foreign ministry, the four regions, neutrality for Ukraine, no NATO membership, all of that. And that remains the only basis upon which he's prepared to talk for an end to the war. So I just to quickly say that. But either peace with Russia and Putin, that's the logical line that the Americans take, Or the Europeans try and work some of Trump's people and get him to take a hard line under the illusion that you can get Putin to back off from this, which won't happen.

Or alternatively, and this is the other big danger, that they will work with all their other friends and allies in Washington, of whom they have many, and that they will make Trump's life impossible all over again. will use the still pro-war majority that there is in Congress to try and pass spending bills, supporting Ukraine against Trump's wishes. He could, of course, always exercise his power of veto, but that might be complicated, difficult, and they might still try to involve the United States in that kind of way. And that, I'm afraid, remains a real possibility. But in terms of Trump's own decisions, it's either exactly, as you said, escalation or peace. Yeah.

All right. I'll just leave it with one final thought. The deal that Trump can present to Putin is exactly the deal that Putin is asking for, for regions, Zelensky, except the fact that you're losing territory, which is the message that El-Pais said Trump sent to Zelensky. you're going to have to see territory. We don't know the boundaries, but that's the message that El Pais is reporting. Trump sent to Zelensky. So the four regions, elections, elections in Ukraine, no NATO.

And we'll discuss further in my presidency, a wider security architecture in Europe. Correct. And maybe some sanctions relief. I mean, I don't know. That could be, that could very well be the deal that Putin says, okay, this is something we can talk about. Absolutely.

It's the best, it's the optimal deal for both the Americans and the Russians, actually. And can I just say, for Trump himself, easing sanctions, I've said this many times, easing sanctions, ending sanctions on Russian energy exports is very much to his advantage since he needs to start bringing inflation down. And one of the major factors pushing inflation upwards is the fact that energy costs in Europe and in other places are higher than they should be because of the way in which the energy trade, the oil trade in particular, has been disrupted by the Biden era sanctions. So scrapping those sanctions actually works to Trump's advantage.

And of course, it works to the advantage of American consumers. and European consumers and everybody except the neocons and their globalist friends in Europe. All right. We will end the video there. The durand.org.com. We are on Rumpeloddisi, Bitch, and Telegram, Rock, Fiddinandex. Go to the Durandshop, pick up some merch like what we are wearing in this video today. The link is in the description box down below. Take care.