The Duran Podcast - Forever wars w/ Aaron Maté

Episode Date: May 2, 2024

Forever wars w/ Aaron Maté

Okay, we are live with Alexander Mercuris. How are you doing, Alexander? I'm doing very well and very delighted and excited that we got Aaron Mate at last on our program. Very honored. We are very honored to have a man who probably doesn't need any introductions because I'm sure everyone that is watching this stream follows Aaron's work. Aaron Mate, it is a pleasure to have you on the Duran. Thank you very much for joining us today.

The honor's mine. I'm a regular viewer of the Duran and your individual channels, so it's a real thrill to be here. So thank you for having me. Aaron, I have your Twitter in the description box down below. I have the gray zone. I have pushback. Is there any other places that you would like to let our viewers know to follow you? I also co-host a podcast with my friend Katie Halper called Useful Idiots. And that's a Useful Idiots Podcast.com. I have that in the link in the description box as well. I will have all those. links as a pinned comment down below when the live stream ends. Let me just say a quick hello to everyone that is watching us on locals. How is the locals community doing on Odyssey, Rockfin, and Rumble. Hello to everyone on Rumble and hello to everyone on YouTube and the big shout out to our moderators. Hope everyone is doing well. Thank you to all our moderators for everything that you do.

Aaron, we have to talk about forever wars, so let's get into it. Absolutely, and whom better to discuss it with than Aaron, because if I can say, one of the things I would say about Aaron, and I've been following his work, reading his work, following what he's been writing and saying for a long time, now many years, is that these have been particularly feverish and intense times, and it's very difficult to keep a level head through them. That's what I've found. I mean, people have got swept along by constant waves of hysteria

at various points in the last 20 years. Aaron is one of the very few who never has. He's managed to keep a level head through it all. That's one thing that makes him so important and so valuable. And he's able to write in an insightful way pointing out the absurdities, the illogic that people have lurched into throughout that, that period, have around 20 plus years. And can I say, in my opinion, this actually began with the forever wars. We're talking about a whole series of wars that started at the end of the 1990s.

for myself, actually, the first one was the war in Yugoslavia in 1991. But then, of course, we had 9-11. That then led in extrably to the invasion of Afghanistan. Then we had, of course, Iraq. Then we've had more crises in Syria. Libya followed. And then, of course, eventually, inevitably, the big one. And I think it was yourself, Aaron, that I remember once reading, say,

that with all of these wars, we were taking on opponents who were relatively not especially powerful. And that was giving us, us in the West, a false sense of complacency. But sooner or later, we would take on somebody who was too strong. And I think that's what's happened now. we found that we've taken on an opponent who is much stronger than we ever imagined, which is where we've got to with Ukraine. But in all that time, with all of these Forever Wars, we've seen debate closed down, we've seen attempts to control the media, successful attempts to control the media,

Overton window closing, people finding it more and more difficult to speak out, and something which I personally care about because I used to work in this area, we see due process legal protections all starting to wither away as well. And more and more astonishing authoritarian legislation coming forward all the time. So, Aaron, where do you want to start? I mean, because this is a huge topic, the Forever Wars. I think one thing I would say is that the most interesting thing about the ever was, is that the people who advocate them are always the same people.

Every, all the time, you see the same people coming forward and, you know, they lead us into one, and then they lead us into the next one, and then the next one. None of them have turned out very well, but those people never go away. They're always there, and they're keen to lead us into more wars, and now they've got us into a really big one, and they're talking about even bigger ones still perhaps on the horizon with talk unthinkable ones, civil war with China. But where do you want to begin with all of this? It's a huge topic. Well, I think your latter point about this is the same cast of characters is really important. And for me, the personification of this is Victoria Newland. Look at her background.

She's worked as both a senior aide to Dick Cheney of the Republican Party and also Hillary Clinton. John Kerry famously called her the only member of the, Clinton Cheney Alumni Club. And that was supposed to be a joke about what a crazy thing it is that Victoria Newlands worked for both a prominent Republican and a prominent Democrat. But in fact, the actual point there is that this is the same club of people. And they've had such a hand in all the disasters that you laid out of the last many decades. And unbelievably, they're always handed a new blank check to continue.

Look what just happened in Congress. You had Republicans saying for many months, we're not going to approve any more funding for Ukraine unless we approve more militarization of our border. What happened to that demand? They just completely caved and dropped it. And why? What did it take? All it took was months of Mike Johnson House Speaker being called a Russian apologist, an ally of Putin. He received some private briefings where he was made to feel very important.

He was told about, he was given threats, basically, that you'll go down in history as the person who sold out Ukraine. and that was enough, I think, to get him to cave. What did Donald Trump do? Trump has sort of been posturing as being anti-deep state and anti-war, but Trump gave his blessing to Mike Johnson as well. I don't think either of these guys, Mike Johnson or Trump, are ideologically neocons like someone like Victoria Newland is, but it's just the way Washington works.

They always get their way. And you see that constantly. In Ukraine, you have a situation where what the elected president, president wants has ultimately not really mattered. You can see that in the case of Trump, of Obama, and I would argue Zelensky as well. Obama got cold feet about the proxy war, that his administration started back in late 2013, early 2014. He didn't want to send weapons to Ukraine. He dragged his feet. Everybody in his administration was against him. And I have a new article out for real clear investigations where I go through some of the history.

right when the Minsk courts were signed, you have this meeting on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference at a luxury hotel. And there, it was reported in the German media at the time. And a few journalists in the U.S., including the late Robert Perry, a hero of mine, picked this up. Otherwise, it was widely ignored. But you have a meeting there with Victoria Newland,

John McCain, Mike Pompeo. Mike Pompeo was in a U.S. Congress member. And they're basically saying, we're going to ignore the Minsk courts. And Newland is talking about we're going to flood you, Ukraine with more weapons. Just as Obama has given his blessing to Angela Merkel and a launch and negotiate the Minsk Accords, Victoria Nolan is saying we're going to basically undermine them. And McCain is talking about how Merkel is essentially Neville Chamberlain. And

this is, you know, the Minsk courts are basically their Munich moment. And that's really has the power. And they won. Obama just didn't have the whatever it was, the fortitude to stand up to his own cabinet. And as things progress, then Trump comes into office. Trump talks about wanting to get along with Russia. He doesn't want to fight a proxy war in Ukraine. In fact, on the campaign trail, he said, we don't want to have a world war over Ukraine.

But what happens? He gets into office. The same people who wanted to escalate the proxy war in Ukraine, frame him as being a Russian agent. And he caves. He sends weapons to Ukraine that Obama wouldn't even send. And finally, when he drags his feet a little bit and he freezes those weapons, he gets impeached.

And same with Zelensky. Zelensky, he's elected on the peace platform. He, I think you could argue, I mean, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I think early on he did take some genuine steps toward implementing Minsk, although maybe I'm being too generous to him. But regardless, you have right sector, all these ultra-nationalist groups saying, we're going to overthrow you. We'll do another May Don if you implement Minsk. And he ultimately, facing no support from Washington, backs down. And it's just a lesson that ultimately in all these countries, or the Ukraine or Washington,

It's the people with muscle, the neocons, the entrenched elite, the people with who can use coercion, intimidation, and the case of Victoria Newell and their allies subterfuge, who always get their way. Indeed. If you asked me about Zelensky, I think no doubt at all that he wanted to achieve some kind of a peace with the Russians. He campaigned on that. Maybe that's not so important. But then he went off to Eastern Ukraine. He went to the military. He spoke to the members of the Azov Brigade. He said, look, we can't go on like this. This isn't working. It's destroying our country. It's impoverishing old people. We have to speak peace. And the commander there, a man called Balinski, said, if you do that, we'll hang you in Kyrgyzsche Street in Kiev. And that basically was the end of that. He had a meeting with Putin also, by the way, one meeting with Putin. Didn't go particularly well because he was trying to get Putin to agree to move past Minsk in some fashion. But initially, I don't think there's any doubt that that was what he wanted to do.

That was what he's back as. his original backers, people like Kolomoisky, the oligarch, also wanted him to do, because they also wanted stability in Ukraine. And then, of course, the war begins in 2022. What does he do? The very second day, he says, let's talk peace. Apparently, he's received a call from the Kremlin, a man called Cossack, who works for Putin, calls the presidential office.

in Ukraine says, look, let's have some kind of discussion, negotiations happen. We get an agreement basically sorted out in Istanbul on the 27th of March. Zelensky gives a press conference. Again, he says that he wants peace. This is, by the way, after all those events in that suburb in Kiev, that we've all heard about, the atrocities and all of that. And then, of course, in the meantime, he's getting course in Boris Johnson in London, and Boris Johnson turns up in Kiev and tells him, you know,

you've got to scrap this agreement. And also, of course, as we are now gradually coming to understand, the United States also was very, very strongly against the agreement that had been reached in Istanbul. And when we say the United States, not just, of course, Biden,

but the very same people that you've just been talking about. So I do think that Zelensky at various times wanted peace. I think he's an unstable, volatile character. I don't think he's ever been someone who's wanted to be consistent

in the line that he's taking. But I also think he's frightened. And I think he has been frightened at all times and is so still. And that explains an awful lot about his actions and motivations. So yes, I think, I think that he is another example of somebody who wanted peace but couldn't deliver it and now finds himself in the war.

So there we go. What do we do with all of these people? We have, I think, a fair idea of who they are in terms of persons. But why do they have this power? What makes them so strong? Why are they always in power, even when they're not in office, as people are. is in Britain? What makes them so strong? What makes it possible for them to engineer the impeachment of a president and to threaten other presidents and to always get their way? That's a great question. I wish you had the answer. There's a line from Alexander Vindman. He was one of the star witnesses of Trump's impeachment. And he said that one of the reasons why he raised concerns about Trump's phone call was Zelensky is that Trump was subverting the foreign pocket. policy of the United States, which such an amazing line. Because who makes the foreign policy

of the United States? Is it the elected president or is it unelected bureaucrats like Alexander Vindman? But these people are so entitled that they do really feel is that they're the ones in charge and they're the ones who decide what happens in the world and what the U.S. government does. And even when the elected president decides something differently, they feel entitled to undermine him. A similar thing happened to Obama. In my latest article for real clear investigations, I report that John Brennan, the CIA chief, in mid-April, 2014, right before Ukraine announces the ATO, the anti-terrorist operation against the Donbos, which starts the war in the Donbos. The day before John Brennan goes to Kiev, he has meetings with his counterparts.

At the time, the Kremlin Yanukovych say that, you know, why is John Brennan there? And is he encouraging an assault on the Donbos? Brennan denies this as we want dialogue. But what I report on my article is that according to a participant in the meeting, in that meeting with John Brennan, who I interviewed, Andrei Chalachenko, who was serving as Ukraine official at the time, Brennan did exactly what the Kremlin accused him of. He encouraged an assault on the Dombas and discussed how the U.S. could support it.

Anyway, about a week later, the New York Times comes out with this article. It's really worth actually rereading for anybody who wants to understand the role of the U.S. and Ukraine. It's by Peter Baker, who's basically, he's a stenographer for the Biden-Obama team. He's still in New York Times, top White House correspondent. It's basically a declaration of a new Cold War in Obama's name. It says that Obama has decided that he cannot have a constructive relationship with Vladimir Putin. There will be no more discussion with Vladimir Putin, and the only policy now will be to pressure Putin sufficiently and pressure Russia sufficiently so that Putin is overthrown. It's obvious that this comes from Victoria Newland, because everything in that,

article tracks exactly with what Victoria Newellin was saying at the time. Basically, we can't have a constructive relationship with Putin. The only way is for Russian people to feel the pain of his policies. And then then hopefully they'll make a smarter decision. And so amazingly, the article, it declares a cold war in Obama's name. But then deep down, this, the Peter Baker sources complain that Obama is being tepid. He's not being confrontational enough with Putin. So which is it? Is Obama declaring a new cold war with Putin saying he won't talk to him? Or is he tepid. And the answer is what Peter Baker's White House sources were doing, we're basically saying, no matter what Obama wants, we're not going to have a constructive relationship with Putin.

We're going to have a Cold War with this guy, no matter what the elected president says. So you just have huge continuity with these people. And they don't care about democracy. They're just driven by, and this is my attempt to get to your question about how do they have so much power. They're just driven by hegemony at all costs. That's how they see. the world. Anybody who is a deterrent U.S. egemony, whether it's their own elected leaders or a foreign leader like Putin is an obstacle, has to be contained. And they managed to find the way to stick around and implement it through their think tanks, through their, you know, the revolving door with the media. It just works so beautifully for them. And it's a, you know, they really

should teach courses on how to, you know, run a organization because they really have the formula down, down to a T. Can I just say a few things here? First of all, I'm Greek and I'm at a certain age. I can remember just about in the 1960s in Greece. We had a security state, very much so, along behind operating behind the facade of democracy. And of course, what we had then was a opinion, very powerful opinion, within this security state that they were the guardians of the nation, that they knew what the nation's true interests were, and the function of the politicians were simply to, you know, provide the showcase. And of course, what eventually that led to in 1967, as I well remember, because I was caught up right in the middle of it, my father, fortunately,

just escaped to rest, was, of course, we had a coup. We had an actual, in the end, a military coup. when this group finally felt that they were, you know, losing control. I'm not saying that's going to happen in the US, at least in that same kind of way. It's a different culture. But eventually, if people do have this belief that they represent the United States and the elected officials don't, and the people who elect them don't do so ultimately either, then that is by definition a deeply anti-democratic process, it will eventually end democracy as it has existed or has assumed to have existed in America.

So that's the first thing I wanted to say. The other thing is this, Aaron, I'm going to suggest something else, that one of the reasons these people are so powerful is precisely because of the forever wars. We've had one war after another going all the way back to the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. but extending even further after 9-11. And that has created within the United States, a national security state of a kind that we have never, the United States has not actually had before,

not even during the worst periods of the Cold War. And of course, they've been able to use the accretion of power, that has come their way through this, through legislation, passed by Congress, first and foremost, to entrench themselves in the heart of the system. And that, in a kind of way, incentivises them to keep this tension and these wars going on all the time. There's an ideological dimension to it. But the last thing they want is peace, real peace, because if there is peace, they are not needed anymore. Yes, and, you know, it's a human drive to want to have meaningful work for many people, not for everybody, for life. And I think that's what's going on for them, is this is their way to derive meaning from life.

And there's a whole racket in place to feed that need. It just happens to result in the deprivation and destruction of the rest of the world. but they don't care because they're just blinded by their own narrow ambitions and their own self-perception of what is valuable to them. And along with that, so along with funneling all this money into the military industrial complex, by putting all this money into wars, you're not putting money into your own people. And that creates a sort of underclass and this precarity that makes it very difficult for people to organize against all these wars in their names. Right now in the U.S. we're seeing a very rare flare-up of dissent against the genocide in God. on college campuses.

But that's not coming from, you know, a working class population because working people here are just so understandably consumed with just trying to survive because there's not enough investment in our own society. All the money goes into into these wars. So the system just works, works so beautifully for people in power. And then you have the media as well, which does not permit discussion of countervailing facts. So going back to the Istanbul peace negotiations that you were discussing earlier, very little information on that whatsoever. For a long time in the U.S. media, you couldn't even really know that there was the outline of a peace agreement reached and that it was abandoned.

And when it did get reported, there was no effort to find out, okay, what happened? They almost had this peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in the early weeks of this war that could have stopped all this. And it didn't happen. What happened next? There was no effort. You just couldn't even acknowledge it. as far as I'm no I don't think any major U.S. official, you know, Blinking, Biden, Jake Sullivan, Victoria Newland has ever commented on, has ever been asked about what was their role back in these negotiations?

There's been a few anonymous quotes to a couple of reporters in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, but nothing on record because the media just knows that they can't go there. They can't, if they were to acknowledge that there was a chance to end this war very early on, the U.S. played a role in sabotaging it. That would undermine the entire narrative of Russia. being imperialist and this war being unprovoked and all that stuff. But it's an amazing oath of silence that's really endured. And, you know, what we do know on record is that the U.S. refused to give Ukraine the security guarantees that Ukraine said it needed to end the war.

That, you know, Ukraine's request was that, okay, we're going to reach a peace deal with Russia, will put off basically the status of Crimea, we'll leave that to further negotiations, but we need security guarantees. And the U.S. came out and said we're against that, which is odd, because the U.S. claims to want to let Ukraine into NATO, which is a security guarantee in itself. So why not just move that process up quicker and offer the security guarantee now? The answer is obvious. They don't care about defending Ukraine. They care about using Ukraine for their openly stated goal now of weakening Russia.

And when Lloyd Austin, the defense secretary said early on, around the same time as the Istanbul talks collapsed, that our goal is to weaken Russia, Biden was so upset that he called him and reprimanded him, even though privately acknowledging that Austin had admitted the truth. And later on, it was openly said. One more example, a story I've covered extensively, I know you guys have mentioned it before, is the OPCW scandal, this cover-up of a chemical weapons probe in Syria by the world's top chemical weapons watchdog.

The actual team that went to Syria to investigate this alleged April 2018 chemical attack found no evidence of a chemical attack. If you read what they write, they're basically saying that this incident was likely staged by the rebels on the ground. Their findings were censored. I've covered this extensively. Leak documents show all this. It's a slam dunk case. Nobody can refute what I write. I publish this at the gray zone. They're also up on WikiLeaks. A few others have written about this too. Robert Fisk, Jonathan Steele. Otherwise, try to find a mention in the U.S. media of just even the existence of the OPCW whistleblowers. They don't exist. And my favorite example is there's a

Washington Post reporter named Joby Wark who wrote a whole book called Redline. It's all about Syria and chemical weapons. It's purportedly about Syria and chemical weapons. Joby Warwick ends his book, Redline, right at the incident in Duma in April 2018. Even though his book came out about two years later. He ends the book at Duma in April 2018. He says, and later on, the OPCW found that Syria was guilty of a chemical attack. He makes no mention whatsoever of what happened afterwards was that we got all these leaked documents

showing that there was a massive cover up that the actual investigators who went to Duma, went to Syria, found no evidence of chemical attack. He ends his book very conveniently so he can ignore everything that came afterwards, which undermines his entire narrative. And when you read about any questioning of the OPSEW investigation in the U.S. media, all they say is there's a Russian-led disinformation campaign

to discredit it. Not there's whistleblowers from inside this organization, veteran inspectors who actually did the investigation. It's like they don't exist. It's purely out of or well. And everybody follows that to a T. There's this complete media obedience in ignoring the existence of these whistleblowers.

And if someone has covered that story very extensively, I've never seen anything like it, just complete omission, because they can't acknowledge their existence because if they did, they'd have to acknowledge their evidence and their findings. And once you do that, you can't refute it, so you just have to pretend it doesn't exist.

This can only happen if the media are on side with this. If the media were doing after job and publishing and reporting facts, and this is a huge fact, I mean, the fact that there were whistleblowers within the OPCW contradicting the official story. I seem to remember, you confirm this is right, but there were incidents where American officials came to the OPCW and openly putting pressure on them about the kind of things that they would say. And this is a huge story. And yet the media, which is supposed to be all about chasing stories, finding facts, they, they,

are part of the omerta, which the silent, the code of silence about this. How is that possible? I mean, what has happened to the media to make that happen? I mean, you know more about the media, I think, than either of us do, because, I mean, you've worked in it. We haven't, but we see it from the outside. And I remember, you know, the old media that I used to be familiar with, The Guardian, the Washington Post of Once Upon the Time, the New York Times, those sort of. publications. What has happened? Because without them, everything that we've been talking about

couldn't, wouldn't be possible. It's a great question. There's just a culture of incentives or everybody just internalizes. Everyone just is aware that if you don't tow the party line, especially on these really pivotal issues of Syria, the dirty war in Syria, all the propaganda around that, the Ukraine war, the proxy war there. Russia gate. There's no memo saying if you don't tow the line, you won't get a job. Everybody just knows it. And everyone's were flexibly now conditioned to smear dissenters as conspiracy theorists or as purveyors of Russian disinformation. It just, it works like that. You know, look, I can speak from personal experience. There have been times when I've been duped by some of the propaganda.

On Syria, I didn't get it until way, until way too late. I didn't. And, you know, I, there was, you know, I'm on the political left and it just people around me also bought into it. And so just because of also, I think, a group mentality, it didn't occur to me to use my critical thinking skills in the ways that I should have. I didn't fully buy into it, but I just, I didn't fully get it in the way that I do now. And so I guess I can say from my own personal experience, there is an incentive. You want to be a part of a group. You people, you know, you just, you don't want to have the trouble that goes, like when you do step out of line, like they, you know, as manufacturing. by Herman and Chomsky talks about there's a flack mechanism.

Just to keep people in line, they enforce it by if you do step out of line, you get flak. You get called names. You get marginalized. You know, that's not pleasant for people. People look at, you know, people might look at what happened to me when I did my Syria reporting and some phony group called the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which is a, you know, State Department, Pierre Omidy, our funded fake think tank, put out this fake study saying that I'm the biggest spreader of conspiracy theories and disinformation on Syria.

They didn't give one example of my purported disinformation. It didn't matter. The Guardian just reprinted that and that gets put in my Wikipedia and everybody wants to discredit me. It just cites that. And that just works. It works on people. Not everyone wants to go through that, you know, and it works very, very well. Luckily, though, you know, and I think you guys are a major part of this, there is this ecosystem

of people who refuse to be intimidated. We exist now. we found an audience and we're piercing through. Trust in corporate media is at an all-time low. That's a wonderful thing because I don't consider these people to be journalists. They're stenographers. And so I do think we're seeing some progress there. But the propaganda is so powerful that it takes a long time.

And the gray zone is another place that does that as well. And I agree there is an ecosystem. And it's not easy to do what all of us do. I think, you know, I don't have to say that to you and to our audience, but nonetheless, I will say. And of course, there's one person whom I don't actually personally know, but I know some of the people who are trying to defend him. And he's in prison in Belmarsh at the moment. And of course, he tried to actually do some reporting. And I was talking about the effect of Forever Wars and the disastrous effect has had on legal processes. And I've seen them playing out like that in Britain now. And the audience. here, and Alex in particular, knows how utterly dismayed I am by that. And I think the same is happening in the United States. We're having legal decisions and legal processes working out,

which once upon a time would not have been possible backed by statutes passing through Congress, like the new Pfizer Extension Act, which once upon a time would have certainly been resisted. or at least commented upon or criticized in a way that they are not anymore. Anyway, that's my little thing about where do we go from here? How do we get out of this? Because we're talking about the forever wars, but the forever wars are escalating. They're getting more dangerous. I think this war, which is a proxy war between the Russians and the Americans in Ukraine,

is an extremely dangerous war. Macron is again talking about sending troops to Ukraine today. He's saying it really depends on the Ukrainians, whether they invite us, which is almost an invitation to the Ukrainians to invite French troops and European troops into Ukraine, which is an absolute disaster. But sooner or later, it's not just going to be a wars that we cannot win or wars that we might lose. It's wars that can end in disaster.

So how do we get back? I mean, is it possible? I mean, is this a runaway train that we can never, you know, stop or break? Or, you know, will something change? You talked about disillusion that exists in the media, for example. You know, all I can do is just continue just to do journalism and hope that it reaches people. And I do see things changing. I'm really inspired by the campus protests in the U.S. where I am.

people putting themselves on the line to protest our government's complicity in Israel's mass murder campaign. And it's that kind of stuff, you know, movements, properly movements have a history of changing things. And, you know, that's what I keep my faith in. Alexander, since you raised Macron, I do want to ask you about him. Can you tell, like, what happened to that guy? He was talking about, you know, making peace. He talked about early on and in the, after Russia invaded. He said, we have to address Russia's security concerns.

right before the invasion he was trying to broker a last minute agreement. You know, he pressured Zelensky to basically declare neutrality. Zelensky told him no. That was reported in the Wall Street Journal a while ago. But now Macron is talking about sending in troops. He's embarrassing Olaf Schultz, even, who's even saying, like, what the heck are you talking about? What is going on with Macron? And when Russia hears this, like, are they laughing?

Like, do they, like, does McCrone think he's intimidating Russia? by threatening to send in his forces? Because it's my impression that Russia is not very scared at the prospect of fighting French troops. Oh, no, not so. Why is Macron doing this? Aaron, I can't answer that question simply. I mean, I don't know Macron personally. So, you know, he doesn't explain things to me.

But you're absolutely right. He swings constantly from taking the most extreme hardline position to the one way he talks about, you know, moderation and diplomacy. and that kind of thing. And it's difficult to know exactly what he's going to say from one day to the other. Today he's got this extraordinary, panicky, dark interview that he's done at The Economist. The whole of Europe is in crisis. Everything is falling apart.

Darkness is scumming. The blitzkrieg is heading in our direction. It's actually all there. It's most astonishing. Other days when he's in a sort of more, you know, collected mood, he talks more. He talks more rationally. I think a lot of it, and I have to say this, I think he's down to vanity. And I mean, you know, one doesn't like to talk about psychological explanations for decisions.

But I think there is this. He feels that France has not been given the leadership role in Europe over the course of this crisis that he thinks it deserves. it's the most powerful military force within the European Union. He thinks France and by extension himself, therefore, ought to be taking the lead in European action over Ukraine. Instead, he's seen most of the decisions have been made by the Americans and the British outside the European Union. And he also is very frustrated by the Germans who seem to be aligning with the Anglo-Americans, rather than following what Macron feels ought to be a French-led European line. So for that reason, he does what he has always a tendency to do,

which is that he overcompensates and overcompensates dangerously by floating these reckless ideas of sending French troops to Ukraine. Deeply unpopular in France, by the way, I understand deeply unpopular within the French military, with which Macron does not have an easy relationship, but that doesn't seem to be holding him back. So that's my best take on it. I mean, I can't give you a more satisfactory explanation. It would need someone to actually sit down and do a proper interview with him, and nobody, of course ever does. And psychiatric assessment. and psychiatric assessment.

Yeah. And another question I wanted to ask you was, why do you think there was such hostility to the Minskawarys inside Ukraine? Like, the bargain to me seems pretty fair. I mean, yes, it was negotiated at a time when Ukraine was at a military disadvantage. They suffered some defeats. But still, basically, the bargain to me was, you know, give these people some limited rights of autonomy.

You get to keep control of your own borders. And we'll have peace. The Russians will withdraw their forces and their weaponry. They'll stop back in the rebels. You'll get control of your borders. All you have to do is let these people elect their own judges and have some control over their own affairs in the East. And the answer I can come up with is that Ukraine's ultra-nationalists actually didn't want these people in Eastern Ukraine. They didn't want these Russia-Iline Ukraine. And of course, the U.S. didn't want to grant Russia any kind of influence instead of Ukraine. which is what Wintz would have done because, you know, it would have kept its biggest allies inside the country and therefore they could have vetoed NATO. But from a Russian point of view, Minsk seems very fair because you have, it comes after a coup where the U.S. back the overthrow of a government, helped select its leadership. And now after February 2014, U.S. is playing a major role inside Ukraine. I mean, Hunter Biden. He gets a very lucrative board seat. it's very it's an it's an open secret that u.s officials are telling ukraine who to hire who to fire um andre telchenko the former ukraine official who i interviewed for my latest article he says this that you know

they were telling us that we we had to vet our candidates uh with them you know the the most famous case is joe biden getting uh victor shokin fired so russia sees all this uh happening in a country on their doorstep and so they're saying all right well we need something that can guarantee um our interests because you know We have millions of people inside Ukraine who are aligned with us. Historically, parts of Ukraine were part of our sphere, so we want our influence too. So Mintz seems like a really reasonable compromise. But it was just unacceptable to people in Washington and their allies and the ultra-nationalists. And one more thing, too, which I write about, I didn't really know until recently what a major factor in Russia's buildup that began in 2021, which culminated in the invasion.

A major factor was Zelensky shutting down these three. opposition television networks right after Biden takes office. And a Zelensky official says that this was a welcome gift for Biden to shut down opposition TV networks that were linked to Medveduchuk, who's close with Putin. And after that, that's when the Russian buildup begins because Medveduchuk's facing charges. His TV networks are being taken off of the air. And basically what Zelensky is saying here is we're not going to let the people of eastern Ukraine even have their own media. that's not going to be permitted inside Ukraine. And Medvedevichuk or some ally of his says that, you know, Russia is going to get either

its influence in Ukraine either by peaceful means or by force. And that was a very, very early warning. But the U.S. and Zelensky just completely ignored that. And I think that incident of shutting down these opposition media networks, you know, imposing sanctions on Medvedevich and taking his assets, that was a major factor in the Russian buildup and ultimately invasion because what Zelensky was doing there was saying that, you know, Russia and its allies and the millions of people who support these parties are not welcome inside our country. That's absolutely correct. Now, I think you've partly answered the question because I think

that in 2014 and thereafter, there was a strong majority of people in Ukraine who probably would have welcomed the implementation of the Minsk Agreement. When I say a strong majority, I mean that, I mean, you know, 70%, which is, after all, roughly in line with what Zelensky got when he was elected president. The problem was not with how Ukrainians in their general majority felt about Minsk, bear in mind most Ukrainians before 2014 opposed strongly also Ukraine entering NATO. I mean, there's all these, all these things. The reason that Minsk was not implemented and was opposed in Ukraine is because certain very, very powerful groups, the ultra-nationalists, but also others, who came to power as a result of the Maidan coup in February 2014, realized that if Minsk was implemented, they would be marginalized and would lose power in Ukraine. as simple as this. They would not be able to implement their entire agenda, which was to

Ukrainize Ukraine, to make all of Ukraine, you know, everybody in Ukraine speak, the Ukrainian language is the first language and basically to extinguish Russian. They would not be able to bring Ukraine into NATO, which is what some of them also wanted to do. And they would not be able to construct within Ukraine the kind of state that they wanted. They too ultimately did. not want peace in Ukraine because they were empowered by the political crisis and by the tension, which they had been active in creating. Now, given how powerful they were after the events of February 2014, after the Maidun coup, the only way I think that their opposition could have been overcome would have been if the Western powers had supported and insisted on the

implementation of Minsk. And you know, you spoke about where you went wrong on Syria. I went wrong badly here on Ukraine because it seemed to me that Germany especially, but France also, but especially Germany with all his economic links and connections with Russia, would very much want to see Minsk implemented, which it had partly negotiated, and that that would be a policy that German government would follow. I never expected and never believed until far too late that the Germans, on the contrary, having birthed Minsk, would actually themselves eventually turn against it and risk peace in Europe. And the whole structure of Europe, which they benefited so much from on the collapse of Minsk. That I mean, that was something I just could not believe.

And remember, I know Germany quite well. I could not believe that that was what they would do. And yet that is exactly what the Indian did. I mean, you know, we're talking earlier about what happened to McCrone. I'd love to know what was going in Schultz's head to, you know, for him to let basically his economy be, be sad. sacrificed for a proxy war against Russia. Why? It's fascinating. And, you know, there's some speculation about Merkel. Like, did she ever really intend to fall through with all this because of what she'd said afterwards about the Minsk Accords when she said that the Minsk Accords really just a means to give Ukraine to buy Ukraine time? I'd create your thoughts on this. It strikes me that she

was just saying that to appease the sort of the jingoism and the war mongering that engulfed NATO States after February 2022 and that she wasn't being, she was trying to basically look tough in their eyes. Because I, you know, why go through all that if your aim is just to have a war in the end? And why build Nord Stream? Unless Nord Stream was just a ruse too. I don't think it was a ruse. I mean, I think that when Merkel negotiated Minsk, she wanted to see the matter of the whole crisis end. Yeah. But the thing to understand about Merkel, and this is something we talked about many times in our programs is that Merkel is never someone who will contest, take what are ultimately the difficult decisions that political leaders is their responsibility sometimes to take.

And say to the United States, say to the British, we're always very opposed to Minsk, you've got, you know, this is, this is the, in the interests of Europe, we will see it done. And of course, she didn't also want to take on the very powerful Atlantis' sentiment and faction within Germany, which has always existed since the end of the Second World War, which I'd always known about, but whose power and influence, I will stay straightforwardly, I greatly underestimated. Merkel never took on, never challenged big powerholders. She always, when faced with difficult decisions, always took the course of least resistance. And this has been very much the reason why we have this crisis today,

because on the one hand, she created a very managerial system in Germany where choices were avoided, problems built up. Germany itself didn't evolve very much. We used to speak about this, Alex and I, a kind of immobilism within Germany, which has left Germany very vulnerable to change. And at the same time, because she was always very concerned

to maintain her own position and to do so always from, you know, the centre, she made sure that alternative political leaders were always sidelines, which is why Germany, at this particular moment of crisis, with her gone, just doesn't have any body strong enough and with the authority to take the reins and to make the decisions that needed to be made. So I think, I have to say this, I think that she was clearly an intelligent leader in many ways. But I think that overall her legacy to Germany has been bad. I mean, you know,

that's my view. That's the one I say. Alex knows about this. And I think that we're paying the price of it now. She would have avoided this. She had the skill and the talent to understand the dangers of allowing the crisis in Ukraine in 2021 to get out of control. She would have found a way to prevent it. but only so long as she herself was there. And that's the problem. Without her, the entire system that she had, not just in Germany, but in Europe, is starting to unravel.

You know, I know we have to wrap soon. I wanted to read you guys a quote, just in case you're not familiar with it, because I find it's so telling. It's by Ben Rhodes. Ben Rhodes is a former senior aide to Obama, and he wrote a memoir about the Obama years. There's some really interesting stuff

in there. He talks about, for example, how he found the U.S. policy in Syria incoherent because the U.S. was putting al-Qaeda in Syria on a sanctions list, but also we were arming the opposition that al-Qaeda led, which he was against. He didn't want the sanctions on al-Qaeda because he said, like,

why are we sanctioning people who were trying to help? It doesn't occur to him that maybe we shouldn't be helping al-Qaeda, but anyway. Then he says, there's a part about Ukraine, which I just find fascinating, because he's always complaining about Putin and how Putin would go on these long-winded tangents that him and Obama, they all found so annoying, and they just, they found Putin to be kind of a drag.

And here's one passage where he's complaining about Putin and his Putin's phone calls with Obama. Quote, Putin would always steer the conversation back to what he saw as the original sin. In his view, the protests that overthrew Yanukovych were initiated by the U.S. because some of its leaders received grants from U.S. democracy promotion programs. Okay? So Ben Rose is acknowledging that some of the coup leaders received grants from, quote, U.S. democracy promotion programs. And he can't understand why Putin would somehow be annoyed by that. And he can't do the contradiction between giving people funding in the name of democracy promotion and then having them overthrow an elected president.

I mean, that's the hubris of these people and their attachment to hegemony that, you know, he's acknowledging that we funded people who overthrew an elected government. government. And he can't understand why Putin would possibly complain about that. And indeed. I mean, it was the complete lack of logic because we allege that the Russians were funding people in the United States during the 2016 election, which they weren't, and were involved in all kinds of collusion with them, which they weren't either. But, of course, we were very angry with that. And if you live in Europe every day in Britain, every day, you have all sorts of warnings about, you know, Russian election meddling and that kind of thing. So, you know, what the Russians are complaining about in Ukraine, which actually happened because it's not disputed, that it's, you know, it's obsessive and it's paranoid on their part to be worried about that.

But what they do or what they're alleged to do to us, well, that's entirely wrong and inappropriate and that's impossible and dangerous election meddling. It's difficult, I think, to discuss these things logically with these people, because I'm sure you would agree with me. We had Ben Rhodes here, and we made all those points to him that we've just made. He still wouldn't understand them. I mean, he would reject them outright and he would close down and basically refuse to recognize them. or debate them with us. That's my own personal. Because he's internalized the values of people in power,

which is that we have the right to meddle wherever we want, overthrow governments, no one has the right to dare do anything to us. And that's predicated on just not seeing others as equal. The whole point of the world system is to see everyone as partners. It should be, at least I think. But that's not how these hegemons, no matter what party they're in in the U.S. see the world.

And by the way, when it comes to election meddling, we're still learning about 2016. and the whole Russia gate thing. And one of the things I discussed in my latest article at Real Clear Investigation, it's also at my substack. But is that Ukraine played an even bigger role in the whole Russia gate thing than I previously knew, which is buried in that recent New York Times article, which I know you guys discussed about where the CIA was all of a sudden taking credit

for running 12 secret bases inside Ukraine. A very strange thing to brag about at this point. But anyway, buried in the article is the acknowledgement that the CIA were locked on Ukrainian intelligence to come up with purported evidence that fingered Russia for the hack of the DNC. The Ukrainian military intelligence, which by the way was heavily controlled by the CIA, as that article acknowledges, that they played a critical role in handing over some sort of information that the CIA under John Brennan, the same guy who backed a coup in Ukraine, encouraged assault on the Donbos, did all sorts of shady things, that he relied on to now accuse Russia of interfering in the U.S. elections.

So Ukraine was heavily involved in interfering in a U.S. election and all the chaos that happened since then. Ukraine was critical to the core allegation of Russia gate, which is that Russia stole those emails. And by the way, if you look at the phone call between Trump and Zelensky in July 2019, that's the first thing that Trump asked Zelensky about. The dominant narrative is that Trump was asking Zelensky for help to investigate the Bidens. He did ask about that, but that's not his top area of concern. The first thing Trump Asselensky about is, can you help me figure out what happened with Ukraine and their role with CrowdStrike? Because CrowdStrike is the Clinton hired firm that first accused Russia of hacking the DNC.

And in this New York Times article, they say that Ukrainian intelligence was vital in identifying the role of Fancy Bear. And Fancy Bear is a purported Russian unit that hacked the DNC. And who came up with the name Fancy Bear? It was Crowdstrike, working for Clinton. So Ukraine is heavily implicated in this Clinton campaign scam. which has caused, you know, which engulfed the country, it created relations between the U.S. and Russia. I think it directly led to the Russian invasion

because it made diplomacy, the whole Russia gay thing made diplomacy with Russia absolutely impossible and encouraged confrontation. Indeed, Aaron, we need, I think this is where we, it's a good place to stop anyway. But we will, we need to discuss all of these things again, many times, both on the Duran and elsewhere, if you wish, just so.

But in the meantime, if I can ask you perhaps to stay a little, I think Alex has a few questions for you. Yeah, do you have 10 minutes, Aaron, to answer some questions from yours? Great. From Latimeros's dear Durant team, thank you for inviting Aaron. He is an amazing journalist. Always good to hear his analysis on world events. Thank you, Lada for that.

Tisham says, love you, Aaron, with their backs up against the wall, isolated from the global south. will U.S. Israel ever accept this? Will the U.S., sorry, ever accept this? With their backs up against the wall. Isolated from the global south. Will Israel and the U.S. ever accept this? I guess the, I'm not quite sure, Tisham, what you mean by? I think they welcome having the global South hate them, personally.

Personally, I think about U.S. and Israel, it's a badge of honor. They have just so much contempt for everybody else. They're in a league of their own. Right. Hank says, any thoughts of when the war in Ukraine will end and how? I'll deferred Alexander on that. Well, perhaps soon as we imagined. I mean, we've just done a program on this, Alex and I today.

But, well, we'll see. I mean, we're looking at a breakthrough, it seems, by the Russians. And alarmed bells rigging, that's what Macron's interview and the economist ultimately is all about, you know, it could be that everything is going to win very fast, unless we step in somehow and risk World War III to stop the Russians advancing. Very difficult ever to predict the outcome of war. And remember that in a war, anything unexpected can have. happen. Can I just quickly ask one other question of Aaron, going back to the previous question.

I'm sure you've read that piece from Axios about how Israel is now threatening to basically choke off the Palestinian Authority if the ICC dares to issue warrants against Israeli leaders. I have any thoughts about that very quickly because I should have asked you. that before. But I mean, that seemed to me such an astonishing thing. And going back to the previous question about, you know, what do they feel about being isolated

from the global South? Isn't that going to seal their isolation totally if they do something like that? On the latter question, I don't think they care. You know, they see themselves as superior to the rest of the world. And they delude themselves in thinking that the world is with them.

I mean, look at the rhetoric from the Biden administration about Ukraine, how the world is with them on Ukraine. No, they're not. Look at that. You know, they can't, they're actually isolated on Ukraine now. So much of the global south is against them. But they don't, I don't think they see the world as being the actual inhabitants of the world. They see the world as themselves. That's the, that's in their eyes, the international communities, the U.S. and whoever they can buy off to go along with them.

So I don't know. I just don't think there's, their isolation is such a big concern. to them. In terms of the ICC, my problem there is the premise of the ICC actually doing something to challenge Israel, I just find so hard to believe. I don't know what you guys think about the ICC, but I see them as a tool of the U.S. There's a reason they're called the International Caucasian Court. Most of the people they try are African leaders. Occasionally, they'll go after, you know, a U.S. designated adversary, Molisovic or Putin, but otherwise. So I just find these rumors of an ICC case against Israel hard to believe. If it does happen, then yeah, I have no doubt the U.S.

and Israel will do the familiar tactics of intimidation. You know, previous U.S. officials have threatened to invade the Hague, if anything ever happened to a U.S. official. You know, John Bolton, George W. Bush talked about stuff like that. So I don't know. But it is striking how alarmed Israeli officials seem to be about this case. So I hope I'm proven wrong. I hope I'm proven wrong that the ICC is is toothless. And on the Ukraine war and how it ends, I'm curious, do you think the $61 billion just approved by Congress makes any difference? And I know that a lot of that money is not even intended for the current battlefield, but for the long term. That basically, all right, like, we're going to lose eventually, but at least we can lock in

this money now so we can have an, I don't know, an insurgency or a frozen conflict that maybe could could kick up again. What do you thoughts on that $61 billion? It's not going to change the outcome of the war. What it might do is it might slow the process of the inevitable military defeat that's happening in Ukraine. I think the idea was to drag this thing out to the end of the year. And I think one of the reasons we're seeing panic

starting to take hold now is that they're starting to worry that with the latest Russian advances and with the many problems that apparently are starting to appear within the Ukrainian military, it might not be enough to drag this thing on to the end of the year. In other words,

beyond the November election. So I don't think it's going to change the outcome. I don't think it was ever expected really that it would. I think the immediate plan was

get beyond November and then plan something else. And that's something else. I think is exactly what you highlighted, the 10-year security agreement, trying to perhaps set up a government in exile, something of that kind, stir up an insurgency. Who knows what they're thinking of? But I'm sure that they're not just going to walk away from this one, because these people never walk away from anything. That is one of the iron books of neocon behaviour. The Iron Rules of Neocom behavior. We should make up a list of that. Sajewa says,

Go on, go on. Yeah, Sajewa says, I agree with Aaron Mote, that change of president is unlikely to change anything in U.S. foreign policy and support for foreign wars. Trump did support Mike Johnson in putting forward the bill for funding Ukraine. Yeah?

Yes, he did. I. And Valentina says, thank you, Duran, for all you do. Respect to Aaron. Aaron and Alexander, have you had a change? chance to look at the or your thoughts on this HR 6090 the anti-Semitism awareness act have you have you had a chance to look at it I have not had a chance to look at it I don't know what Aaron and whether Aaron has you know it's just you know I'm Jewish myself and my dad's side of the

family you know suffered in the Nazi Holocaust and so it's just from that perspective alone I just I find the cheapening of the memory of the Nazi Holocaust and the weaponization of MaitaSan. It's so disgraceful. And then when you look at what it's being used for to justify a mass murder in Gaza, what can you say? It's so embarrassing. It's so disgraceful. And by the way, on the point about Mike Johnson and Trump and the Ukraine measure, there was an amazing line in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago where they said that Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, he's happy that. that Republican lawmakers who voted to fund Ukraine stood up to their own voters.

And as if that's a victory for democracy that these lawmakers stood up to their own voters, who in the majority oppose more funding for Ukraine and voted to funnel another $61 billion into Joe Biden's work. I mean, it's such a nice window into how democracy really works, is that our elected leaders, our Democratic leaders are happy, proud that they stand up to their own voters and ignore their wishes so they can funnel more of their money into a terrible war. Well, said. Hank says, Aaron, what are the chances of a civil war in the U.S.? You know, I don't like to play a prognosticator on civil wars. So I couldn't tell you. You know, I think that's a long way away. But who knows? Who knows?

Andreas says, do you see an alternative to the two-party system evolving in the U.S.? Well, there has to be. You'd like to think that, you know, since we live, it's just a supposedly in a free society that eventually we could break this duopoly. Every time somebody tries, they get everything thrown at them to make it impossible. You know, Jill Stein, I just spoke to as a Green Party candidate. To even get on the ballot is just an uphill battle. And she's, you know, she was in Russia gate. She was smeared also as a Russian agent.

She was even investigated by the Senate for colluding with Russia because she went to a dinner put on by RT and sat at a table where Putin was for, you know, a few moments. So it's very difficult, but, you know, maybe I'm naive to still believe that democracy is possible. So I'd like to hold out hope. Amin says, Aaron, are we doing enough? What more can we do? Will our efforts compel our tyrants to change forcing their will upon the free? Are we doing enough?

You know, I think everyone's just responsible for doing what they can within their means and doing their best. The book Nook says, thank you for having Aaron. Do you see the speech laws as successfully shutting down the college protests or will the students prevail? Well, there was just a very, very harsh crackdown. And there was a tolerance of violence against the anti-genocide protesters at UCLA the other night. Israel supporters launched fireworks at a peaceful encampment. they brought a bag of mice. They did all these really horrible things,

and the police were nowhere to be found. They let it happen. And then the following night, there was a huge police raid on the encampment, which broke it up. So in terms of tolerating violence, there's a tolerance, and you could argue even encouragement of violence

against people who are protesting what Israel is doing. And that makes it very difficult for these students to prevail, because they're not violent. They're not violent people. I've been to these protests. These are the furthest, these people are the furthest from violence. You know, they're sensitive college students who are upset about what's being done in their name.

And they've gone out there. But, you know, it's very hard to stand up to, you know, the forces of the state, which, you know, is, you know, meeting out brutality and intimidation and all the tactics that are used to shut people down. Greg D. from Rockfin says, for 80 years, Israelis have been stealing Palestinian land in the West. does nothing but provide billions in weaponry to protect the fevery, but when students pitch a tent to oppose genocide stormtroopers are instantly deployed coast to coast. Yeah, yeah. And I'm in awe of the courage of these young people

who across the country who went out there and I think showed some actual moral leadership. Well said. Aaron Mate, fantastic Aaron Mate, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you for answering the many questions that people had for you, Aaron. We really appreciate it. That was a fantastic live stream, and we've got to get Aaron on the show once again.

Thank you very much, Aaron. It was a real honor. Great to meet you guys, and I look forward to next time. Thank you, Aaron. And once again, you can find, yeah, real quick, Alexander, before you say, just to say thank you. Yeah, go ahead, Alexander, go ahead. I do want to say thank you very much, Aaron.

And we definitely want to see you again. Aaron Mate, I have his Twitter in the description box down below. The Substack as well in the description box down below. The Gray Zone. Useful Idiot Podcast and Pushback. Is there, did I get everything, Aaron? Is there anything more? That's it.

Thanks so much, guys. It's great to talk to you. Thank you, Aaron. Take care. Take care. All right. Alexander, you with me? Absolutely.

I'm here. Fantastic. Fantastic show with Aaron. It was absolutely lovely. And it was great that he was asking questions. I mean, that's... What are the best journalists out there, yeah? No, absolutely quite.

Yeah, without a doubt. Oh, all right. A real journalist. A real journalist. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Do you want to knock out the rest of the questions? Yes. I think we should.

I think we should. Absolutely. Knock out the questions before Baskha, before we take a couple of days. break we will still get videos up though for anybody um let's start one sec let's start with death dealer one three four one ukraine might be getting f-16s after orthodox easter on sunday 5th yes we've we've all heard that i mean i don't think we're surprised yeah i mean we harbour rebar by the way says that they already have had them i mean that they've been buzzing backwards and forwards in romania into ukraine

and they've been circling around and flying back and going on to airfields and returning. He might be right. With NATO pilots. Well, who knows? All right. Henry Harper, welcome to the drag community. Di Gren, welcome to the drag community.

Tisham says T-Rex has tested the fences. Iran. What's next? T-Rex is test. Iran. What's next? Not sure I understand that question. I'm not sure I understand that one.

If you can put in the chat, then we'll get to it. Vince says, hi from Australia. Death says, I've never understood the Israel-Palestine conflict until I read Israel, the Sepatic nation, psychopathic nation, I guess is what is meant here, by Laurent. Gaonaut, an Israel, Shahak works on this. Well, I haven't read these books.

The book I've read on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which I've read it, I've read others since, but the first one I read, which informed me, was by a British journalist and historian called David Hurst, H-I-R-S-T, called The Gun and the Olive, That describes the whole story, basically. And I mean, I think also there's the Israeli historian Pape, who's written many books about the origin,

especially one famous book about what happened at the beginning when Israel was founded, which is indispensable reading as well. Poppy, thank you for that super sticker. Sanjava says, thanks, Duran, for all the great work you are doing and for being a very welcoming community. Thank you, Sangeva. Let's see, we answered the question

about how the Ukraine war will end or how do we think the Ukraine war will end? John Ski says, do you think Zelensky has blackmail dirt on Biden, U.S., or is it just an ignorant, or is he just an ignorant pawn? I think he's an ignorant pawn. I think he's got, I mean,

I think the idea that Zelensky, of all people, is going to be able to blackmail anybody in Washington is absurd. But other people in Ukraine far more sinister than Zelensky is. I think that's a different story entirely. But Zelensky himself, I mean, he's an exhausted clown. Chris H says, awesome guest. Aaron is a true journalistic hero. Thank you for that.

From orange proximity, how does this all end? What? The Forever Wars? The Forever Wars? The global... We tried the answer. We tried the answer. Exactly.

Can I just repeat again what I said the other day in the program we did with Jimmy Dore? Which I'm sure, by the way, is not original to myself, which is that when change looks impossible, it becomes inevitable. That is a historic... Did you come up with that? truth. I am not sure that I did. That's a great quote. It was in my mind when I said it. Say that again? That's a great quote.

When change looks impossible, it becomes inevitable. Yeah. And don't despair. You said that last live street to one of the questions. Absolutely. Absolutely. You say that a lot. It's true. Don't despair. We'll get through this. Hank says What if we answered that with the chance of civil war

We got that one Linda thank you for that super sticker Sancho Relaxo says UK MI6 is a perfidious albatross around the US's neck Yes I've never directly had contact with

MI6 but a close friend of mine did when they try to recruit him at university and I can't tell you everything that he told me, but what he said, let's put it like this, was very uncomplimentary. Margarita, thank you for that super sticker. Matthew says, given Macron's latest comments in The Economist, have you changed your stance on NATO not being likely to intervene?

Or is this simply more rhetoric? I think it is more rhetoric at the moment coming from Macron. But unfortunately, what he is doing is he's creating an atmosphere where it might happen. And the most dangerous thing that he said by far is that Ukraine would need to request it, which is, of course, an invitation to Ukraine to request it. I mean, sooner or later, it will come. And on the basis of what Macron said, I mean, he basically is trying to maneuver everybody into a situation where when the request from Ukraine comes, it, it, it, is, It happens.

Sangeva says when you visit the USA, you meet the nicest people. Then you see the cabal of people at the helm of government so intent on imperialism. Such a detachment from the ordinary US citizen. I completely agree. I should say that I have found standards of warmth and friendship and courtesy in the United States, which are off the scale. and that is absolutely my overwhelming experience of American people in the United States especially even more than amongst the Americans I meet outside in Europe. But the political class, the people who are there, I mean, they are astonishing.

They are in the class of their own. Johnsky says, does Elensky actually think he is one of the Western elites and they will protect him. Is he that stupid? Yes. Mr. Helmson. Robert, welcome to the drag community. J.H. Scott 6 says, thank you, gentlemen, as always. Brulaham says, can you guys invite Nemma Gartavini on your show to have discussion on elite theory and modern history? He's the reference. He's the reference, and the interview is bound to be very interesting. His recent books are the populist delusion and the prophets of doom. He's familiar with both your works. Oh, I see. Okay. Right. Yeah, that'd be great. We'll contact. Namaparvini. Absolutely. Trevalin says three great minds,

Alex Alexander and Aaron. Look for that. The Black Cats. Thank you for a super sticker. Elza says, you are the best. Thank you, Elsa. Robert says, what do you think about the confiscation of Russia funds and U.S. dollar and bricks. We've discussed this in many programs. It's going to happen. The Biden administration wants it to happen. They always get the Europeans to agree to what they want. It will be a disaster for the Eurozone finance, for the European financial system.

It will have negative effects on the United States. But it's part of the project to keep the Ukraine thing going indefinitely, both as an operation to unsettle and destabilize Russia, and also to keep the money laundering machine operating at full speed for the next 10 years. So that's what they're going to do it? Got to keep that washing machine moving. Dirty Dangle says, end of the last show. You said that under Hegeman, you said that under Hegeman,

the U.S. turns rivals into enemies and allies also into enemies. I argue the allies of hegemony are turned victims, a much more unpredictable status. Well, that's also true. That is absolutely true. I thought I said vassals, actually. I think that was what I said that they would become. But victims, of course, yes.

Victims is good, yeah. Rich West, thank you for that super chat. Mike says, do the best. Anderites know that whether Ukraine wins or loses, the U.S. will ensure they're purged from Ukraine. I don't know what they think, to be honest. I mean, I find it I don't really like to enter into the mind of people like that. What I am guessing is that they're getting very angry and very, very desperate now. And you see it in some of the comments that they're making.

And in the fact that they're starting to criticize the Ukrainian high command and the leadership in Ukraine in increasingly threatening terms. If you won't be to say, I'd say this is a much more dangerous situation for the Ukrainian government. This kind of criticism is much more dangerous than anything the Russian government faced from Pregojin on the eve of the Pregojin affair. Lover of the Russian team says great show guys. NGS says thank you for your work.

It is important in itself, but also for me personally, given how detached from reality MSM is. I would have gone mad without it. Thank you for that. NGS. Tish M says, the Ukraine NAAZI project exposed the EU's vassal state. Yes. Lover of the Russian teams,

very true, yes. Lover of the Russian team says, I hate all these forever wars. It's not right. Yes, of course. Any normal person wants peace. There's a famous ancient Greek saying, which was taken up by the Romans, very popular amongst the Romans, that peace is when sons bury their fathers. War is when fathers bury their sons. Nobody in their right minds should want a permanent state of war, which is what we have. Kyle, thank you for a super sticker. Dirty Dangle says viewing MSM is paying someone to gaslight you. Commando Crossfire says, all I am saying is give peace a chance.

Yeah. James says, failing upwards, definition, the process of serving private power predominantly while occupying a position of supposed public service for which many have been promoted and rewarded. See Washington, D.C. Yes, true enough again. I mean, one day. someone is going to write a proper book about the real nature of power in today's Washington, probably after the system has collapsed.

But somebody will one day write that book. Monica, thank you for that super sticker. The book, Nook says, I think we answered that. Thank you, Paragon. Do you see the speech laws that successfully shutting down college protests? We answered that. Look, summer of 1970 says Alex has the best art. Thank you.

Serbio says, 2.6 million inmates survive six months with water cut off. How? I think it referenced to Gaza. 2.6 million inmates. Oh, I see. I know, I know, I know. I know, I know. The whole thing is terrible.

And there's no other. I mean, it's... is not a sufficiently strong world. It is hideous. It is inhuman. It is monstrous. The lover of the Russian team says, Say no to war.

Basil says, Mr. Demil, I'm ready for my close-up. Gloria Swan. Aton, ATO. For that, Jamila says, thank you, Duran. Happy Easter in advance. For Sunday, all my family and friends

and all that celebrate Orthodox. Christianity, I hope next year Ukraine become Russia. yeah thank you for that super sticker latimeros says now you gentlemen need to invite Max Blumenthal as well well yes

working on it working on it yes absolutely Haccon says what is the general orthodox view on the Caroligians and the H-R-E the Paraligians

Carolingian oh the Carolinians Charlemagne and all that Charlemagne and all that well of course I mean he was a secular emperor at a time when

this was before the schism and the Byzantine government didn't like the fact that he declared himself emperor and had the Pope crown him without first getting their permission because as far as they were concerned there was only one Roman emperor and that was the one in Constantinople

which was legally the position as well. But eventually, I mean, they found ways to work with him. And I did think that orthodoxy has any very, you know, much to say about Charles, a shawl of mine, or about his family in truth. What went wrong came after? Colorado Watch says, people can't see a permanent state of war when their perception of events lacks object permanence. Thank you for that.

William says, Hi, guys, I'm converting to Orthodox, Greek Church. Can you guys please have an actual Christian on the show, Catholic or Orthodox to talk about how Christian Zionism is that is so important to reach to Americans in general? Well, it's certainly a topic to. discuss. It's not one that I confess I know very much about. But, you know, it's certainly an important one. I mean, I think you mean evangelical Christian, Zionism in the United States. It's certainly not part of the Orthodox way of thinking at all. Well, we discussed a bit about

religion with Jay. Oh, we discussed a lot about, we discussed a lot about religion with Jay. Not that specific issue. You know, I mean, we could probably talk about. Jim Chathras is also would be an interesting guest. Javis is good, absolutely. He has a very good guest. He has the geopolitical knowledge, but he also has a lot of the knowledge on orthodoxy as well.

We ought to have Jim on on. We ought to have Jim anyway. Yeah, we need to get Jim on soon. Yeah, Sleepy Cray says, trick question. What do you guys do to avoid falling into narratives like your usual subject? I'm not sure I understand. I mean, we do cover the similar, we do cover lots of topics. But we have, and we have certain, you know, themes.

And, you know, there matters that we consider to be particularly important. The war in Ukraine at the moment is very important. But I don't have any particular rules or protections. So I just follow where events take me, basically. Yeah. But we're also just people with time constraints and there's only so much, so much news we can cover. I mean, yeah.

So we try to get as much news out as possible. But I mean, there's so much going on that it's just impossible to get to everything. Zashad, thank you for that super sticker. Leonid, thank you for that super sticker. John Scott says Ukraine freedom won't be stopped. Thank you for that, John. Matthew says, could it be possible that Macron said Ukraine will have to ask for NATO support, knowing that the USA might not allow Ukraine to ever ask?

Well, he might have said that, but that was not the impression I got from reading the economist. I got the impression that on the contrary, he's preparing the ground for a request from Ukraine. It was the way it read to me was almost like an invitation to Zelensky when things really go bad. to ask NATO for that kind of support. Nigel says, is there any news about Red Sea activity? Well, there's a short, there was an article that I saw in, I think it was Zero Hedge, about the fact that the Houthis have won. I mean, the Americans have been bombing them and trying to prevent them doing what they've been doing,

but the Houthis still are able to intercept and destroy commercial shipping at the Red Sea. It's been a humiliation for the US. Moon Dragon says Kuleba went on a rant about the weapons he gets. Yeah, no. He did. He never has enough. And that will always be the case, by the way. How ever much you give him, he'll always ask for them all.

Oh, gee, thank you for that super sticker. Stephanie says, why don't we hear more about the economist cover a rough guide to hell illustrating October 7 years in October 7 years in advance. It's proof that many had for knowledge. I haven't seen that cover and I didn't know that it existed until now. So maybe I should search it out. Thank you for that, Stephanie. And from locals, Alexander, and we'll wrap it up. One sec. Let me pull it up here. Sage Warrior says, when someone tells me there's no chance of winning the good fight, I like to say we have two choices. Lay down. and let them roll on over us or continue to fight for what's right.

We have to choose to fight. If not for ourselves, then for our children and grandchildren. You are absolutely right. That is exactly my own view. And it is the only way to win. If you can see the battle, then the other side wins. If you fight back, even if the odds are against you, then who knows? You might actually win. In the case of what we're going through today, I believe that we will win. I saw, by the way, the Russian Defense Ministry quoted this line from this Russian film.

I was talking about it with Alex in one of our programs, you know, about our strengths is in truth. Yeah, that program will be up tomorrow. All right. That is everything. Thank you once again to Aaron Mate. I have his information in the description box down below, and I will add it as a pin comment as well. When we end this stream, Alexander, any final thoughts? Let me just do one more quick check to make sure we got everything.

Final thoughts, and we'll sign out. I really do believe that the reason we are where we are is because this enormous, be powerful national security state is emerging the United States. and the neocons have aligned themselves and made themselves useful to it and that there has now been this fusion between them. And they have a material incentive, quite apart from all the other ideological ones, in keeping these wars going.

And that's why we have forever wars. So long as we have the neocons there, we will have forever wars. Even if they lose in Ukraine, they will take us into another one. as night follows day because that's the only thing they know they have to do. I agree with that. Colorado Watch says Joy, I caught another Duran Live show with Aaron Mata. Thank you.

Thank you, Colorado. Watch. Thank you to everyone that caught this show on Rumble. Thank you to everyone that watched us on Rock Finn, on Odyssey. And a question from Odyssey, The La Republic Europen

says a few seconds ago, can you convince Alex to more correctly pronounce the names of Xi, Shempeng and Mark Routhe? Mandarin has two ways to pronounce she, so it uses the X for the other one. Dutch does not have silent vowels to me, probably.

I think I say she, don't I say she? Yes, I believe correctly. It's C, but anyway, whatever. Steve Chimper. Yeah. Steve Schimper. I'm hearing some people say it's she. I'm hearing some people say it's C. Yeah, which one is it?

I think the other thing to say is that China, in China, you have a lot of different regions and pronunciation in them is not exactly the same. So it might be C in some places and she and others. I don't pretend to know for a fact. I think Ruta. Ruta is Ruta, right? I think Ruta is Ruta, exactly. This is what I understand.

I don't know. Let me know people who know how to pronounce Ruta's name correctly if that's correct. Mark Ruta. Anyway, we do our best. Alex is hopeless with foreign languages. Better than me, I think. It's all I can say. I don't know.

I don't know about that. But anyway. Anyway, all right. That is the show. To all Orthodox people, happy Christmas. by the way it's good Friday tomorrow obviously a day where we're all together but um Easter Sunday is coming Christos Anesti when it comes and have a good happy peaceful Easter Christos Anesti Christos Fos Gris Zarael thank you for helping us moderate Tish M

thank you as well who else very quickly Alexander let me just give a big shout out to everyone that helped us moderator. I think I think was just Zareel and Tisham and seeing not seeing anyone else. All right. If I lift someone out, my apologies. Thank you to our moderators. Thank you to everyone that watched us on locals, on Rumble, on Odyssey, on Rock Fame, and on YouTube. Take care. Take care.