The Duran Podcast - Geopolitics, peace and chaos w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

Episode Date: March 11, 2025

Geopolitics, peace and chaos w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

Okay, we are live with Alexander Mercuris in London, and we are joined by one of our most favorite guests on the Duran, the amazing Professor Jeffrey Sacks. Professor Sacks, how are you doing today? Hey, great to be with you guys. It's great to have you on. Yes, things are very interesting in the world these days. We have Professor Sacks' information in the description box down below, and I will add it as a pinned comment as well. So Alexander, Professor Sacks, what should we discuss in the world today? We could go for hours.

We could go for us. We've only got you for 30 minutes. So let's go straight in and let's discuss war and peace and specifically war and peace in Europe, which given that we, Alex and I are in Europe, is obviously a serious matter for us. And two things to say. Firstly, it's quite astonishing to me that good news for Europe and the world, that there are attempts to achieve peace, is seen as bad news by so many people.

I mean, that is really astonishing. But the second thing, the thing I really want to talk about, and since we've only got you for a limited time, let's go straight in, is this titanic, exerctional speech that you delivered to the European Parliament. in which basically you lay out the whole story, the whole history of East-West relations, Russia-West relations, since the time of the fall of the Soviet Union,

you provide the whole context of Western decision-making during that period. And, well, I have to throw it in. This extraordinary conversation you had with Jake Sullivan, which a lot of people are talking about and which, I mean, I've made my eyes pop out of my head where I saw it. But I'm going to go straight in and I'm going to ask you to just summarize what you said in your speech. It would probably be difficult to do in a few minutes. But if you can go straight in and discuss it.

You know, it was a wonderful opportunity. There is a small peace group in the European Parliament. They invited me to speak. A former colleague of mine, now member of parliament, of the European Parliament, Michael Vonnichlundberg, who was an exceptional leader at the UN, and someone that was involved in many conflicts around the world and in trying to end them. So he's very much on the path of peace, leads, co-leads a small group of parliamentarians, because most of the mainstream parties in Europe are still war parties. And so this was a great occasion to talk to the parliamentarians because they came from across the political factions and at least listened politely to me. And since then, there's been a lot of feedback.

My main point was that the United States basically just seriously messed up from the late 1980s. until the last few weeks, actually. Because I saw it with my own eyes. I was an economic advisor to Gorbachev's economic team in 1990, 91. I was an advisor to President Yeltsin's economic team in 1991 to 1993. I was an economic advisor to President Kuchma of Ukraine. In 1993, 94, I've seen it from. both sides. I've been called in by Ukraine since then on occasions after the Maidan, the government

asked me to come in. So I learned a bit of awful stuff about the Maidan as well by personal sight of what was going on. The upshot of all of this was that Gorbachev and Yeltsin and the world at that time, the Soviet world and the Russian Federation said, let's end the Cold War, let's have peace. And the United States could not think in that term. The United States said, oh, we get it. We won. You lost. We do what we want.

It's now the unipolar world. And I think the Soviets and the Russians said, no, that's not exactly what we mean. why don't we have peace and cooperation? And the United States said, yeah, we get it. We win, you lose, we do what we want. This is the essence of the 30 years from 1990 onward. The United States decided, well, we have all the power. We can be a bullet. We can do what we want. We can go back on any commitments made. We can overthrow governments. We can back out. We can back out. of the nuclear arms framework, whatever we want. We are America. So that's my summary in very simple terms. In particular, starting in 1990, February 7, 1990, the United States and Germany

in the context of German reunification, told the Soviet leadership and Mikhail Gorbachev to his face in absolutely explicit terms that our governments have lied about ever since, NATO will not move one inch eastward in the context of the Soviet Union ending, the Warsaw Pact military alliance, and in the context of German reunification. There was a basic deal. Germany will reunify because that was a legal agreement. that needed to be reached to end World War II, actually, in 1990. World War II was not ended by a treaty. It was ended by the four plus two process in 1990 to reunify Germany.

One of the reasons for the Cold War, in fact, was that there was no treaty after World War II because the Western Alliance didn't want a treaty. The Soviet Union said, let's have a neutral demilitarized. Germany. The West said, no, we will remilitarize Germany. We will create NATO. We will create the Federal Republic of Germany without a treaty. The Soviet Union said, but our security. The West said at that time back in the 1940s, not your security. It's our NATO. Okay. Well, there was no end to World War II until 1990 from a diplomatic and juridical point of view. And in that context, the commitment was NATO will not move one inch eastward.

Soviet Union ended in 1991, as we know, in December. I was almost in the room when that happened because I was literally sitting in front of Boris Yeltsin. I don't know if we talked about this before, but in December, 1991, I led an economic delegation to speak with President Yeltsin. He came from the back of a room in the Kremlin. sat down directly in front of me because I was leading the delegation. And he said, gentlemen, I can announce the Soviet Union is over. So I heard it with my own ears to my face, that moment. Oh, I assured him the West will be overjoyed and give him all the financial help for stabilization and so forth. That's what I thought, rather naive. Of course, the United States

did not lift a finger to help this new democratization, this transformation, this historic moment, because while President Yeltsin was trying to grapple with the profound economic crisis, the United States was saying, we won, you lost, we do what we want. And there was absolutely no sense in Washington that this was an opportunity for sustained peace other than the unipolar U.S. world. So the story I said in the European Parliament was immediately the U.S. plan to break its promise and to expand NATO. Bill Clinton, who followed George Bush Sr. in 1994, made the decision, and it was a decision we learned from the historians to go all the way to Ukraine. Already then, the idea was NATO.

we go as far as we want. And we know that the U.S. deep state had the vision from then onward that just like the Soviet Union fell apart, we will help Russia to fall apart. Russia can disintegrate into its ethnic nations. Brzynski in 1997 talked about Russia becoming a confederation of three loosely connected parts, a European part, a Siberian part, and an East Asian part. The grandiosity of the Western vision had no limits. This was, after all, the end of history, as we were told. In the end of history was American hegemony. Well, it did not go well. The Europeans, by the way, knew something's off with this. They didn't just quiet. quietly go along. We should remember that as late as 2003, we had European politicians saying

no to the war in Iraq, which was a war on absolutely fake premises. It was a war that Bibi Netanyahu talked the U.S. into doing on behalf of Israel. This is what that war was about. And the European they didn't support it. The Germans opposed it. The French opposed it. Of course, the British went along. Sorry to say, they always go along, partly because they always go along, and partly because Britain never saw war it didn't like.

This is part of the British imperial nostalgia. But the continental Europeans opposed the Iraq war. But that was basically the last time they opposed the United States. States. And in this grandiosity of the United States, this expansion of NATO, which came in waves, first Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic. Second wave in 2004 was the Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Balkan states, Bulgaria and Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, Central Europe, and the Balkans. that's when President Putin said, stop already. You lied to us, you cheated, but do not come closer.

And of course, these maniac neocons listened to President Putin said, oh, he doesn't want us to come closer. So we must continue, is the American thinking. 2008 was the showdown in Bucharest at the NATO summit. that was the last moment that Europe had a foreign policy. In the first day of the NATO summit, Merkel and Sarkozy opposed the call by George Bush, Jr. to announce a plan for NATO enlargement to Ukraine and to Georgia. The next day, they folded their hands by agreeing that NATO would announce, albeit without

a timeline and a plan that Ukraine would become a NATO member. To my mind, that was the last moment there was a European foreign policy. After that moment, everything was in lockstep with the U.S. neocons. And a whole generation of European politicians rose up, cultivated by U.S. money, cultivated by the military industrial complex network of so-called think tanks, which are the opposite of think tanks. They are the no think tank, please. Do not have any independent thinking. The Atlantic Council, the German Marshall Fund, all of these places basically became neocon breeding grounds for Europe's political class. And we didn't hear a peep. Interestingly, you know, I catch glimpses of all of this. I'm an economist. I'm not in the security world.

But European leaders tell me things because I speak to the top leadership, usually about economic matters. But after Bucharest, one of the European leaders said to me, can't believe what your president did. You know, so reckless, we know how dangerous this is, but not a peep in public. This is the great lie to the European people. In private, they say this was terrible. In public, yes, we follow the U.S. West line. Yes, NATO will enlarge. And of course, we know the sequence of events after that. The U.S. paid for much of, most of perhaps, the Maidan insurrection, the violent coup.

The U.S. was deeply involved in the overthrow of Victor Yanukovych. I'm sure we'll learn a lot more about that in the years ahead. I happen to catch a glimpse of that. I happen to catch a glimpse of also by someone explaining to me after the Maidan, but on the Maidan, while people were still milling around because I was called in to meet with the new government. And I went because I went as a courtesy because I had advised Ukraine beforehand. And somebody explained to me how much money the Americans put into the Maidan insurrection. Really unpleasant stuff. I couldn't stand it. It just, it was god-awful to think about yet another U.S. regime change operation. One more thing to add to the mix that I emphasized in the European Parliament.

Not only did the U.S. expand NATO, not only did it engage in multiple wars of choice, many of them, by the way, on behalf of Bibi Netanyahu and Israel, and Israel's what I regard as absolutely extremist agenda. But the U.S. did one other thing that was at least as consequential, probably much more consequential and under-emphasized. And that is that in 2002, the U.S. unilaterally abandoned the anti-ballistic missile treaty, which was a complete foundational bulwark of, nuclear arms control because the anti-ballistic missile treaty was part of a framework to prevent one side or another from attempting or achieving a first strike capability on the other, a decapitation

strike. The idea is if you don't have anti-ballistic missiles or if you have just a few of them, then if you attack, the other side will be able to counterattack, and you won't have the anti-ballistic missiles to protect your side, so thereby there will be nuclear deterrence. But in 2002, the United States abandoned the basic concept of nuclear deterrence and said, no, we do what we want. We put anti-ballistic missiles where we want, starting in Poland, then in Romania, and then absolutely consequentially, telling the Russians, yeah, even in Ukraine,

if we want, which is apparently what Anthony Blinken told Foreign Minister Lavrov in January 2022, according to the former CIA analyst and wonderful person and analyst Ray McGovern. So three fundamental aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Expand NATO forever surround Russia in the Black Sea region. Keep the U.S. military expanding, number one, regime change, operations, and wars of choice. Number two, and three, abandon the nuclear arms control framework. That's the basis of. of why we ended up in this disaster in Ukraine.

That's what I told the European Parliament. Of course, they don't hear a word of this in the mainstream media. This is all documented, known to historians, known to people who have been involved in this, known to me as an economist who has been involved in this region for more than 30 years, Because it's right there to look at if someone would look at it. And my main message to the European parliamentarians is for God's sake, get a foreign policy, learn the history, understand how you've been walked into this disaster. Well, I told them all of that. Here comes President Trump and says, well, end the disaster.

Thank you. This is this 30-year neocon failure. I think for Trump, the main thing is it's a failure. Ukraine's getting destroyed. You know, one of the, by the way, just as a quick digression, I think one of the clever but true things that is a common quip is that the Russians play chess and the Americans play poker. And I think that this is basically right.

The Russians are looking at the long term. The Americans are bluffing. The Americans are playing a hand. And the neocons were a mix of delusion and bluff. But there was a lot of bluff in it. There was the idea, Russia can't do anything. We're so good. We're so powerful.

They're going to fold. They're going to fold. At every step, the idea was they're going to fold. We're going to warn them. No swift banking system. We're going to warn them. Himas. We're going to warn them.

Attack them. They're going to fold. their hand. Americans, it's filled with idiocy. I'm telling you, it's something to, something to behold. So that's the story I told them. It's a correct rendering of history. It's extraordinarily sad. And the perversity of all of this is that now there's an exit ramp. Now Europe could get its act together, but to this moment, it refuses to do so. So just a few quick points. Firstly, the most important thing to take away from your speech for me

is that this crisis that we have in international relations is the product of purposeful, intentional foreign policy. In other words, the positive choices. There's going to be people who say that we drifted into this, we made all kinds of mistakes, we acted in good faith, we got drawn into a quagmire, nothing of the sort. We actually, and I say we, because we Europeans are accessories in it, we actually made positive decisions that has directly led to this. In that respect, I have to say, I think your speech, Professor Sacks, to the European Parliament, it reminds me of the Pentagon Papers.

Again, the Pentagon Papers showed the stages in which the United States made a series of decisions, purposeful decisions that led to the crisis in Vietnam. the crisis in Southeast Asia. This on an even bigger scale, let, again, was every bit as purposeful. And, well, you were a witness to these events, a direct witness. You were with Yeltsin. You spoke to these European leaders.

You talk to players, decision makers, like Jake Sullivan. I'd like to get onto that in a moment. So, you know, there is enormous weight and authority in what you say. You also describe what you saw in Kiev directly after Medan, what people said to you. The most extraordinary thing, people on the eve of the events

in South Sudan would, you know, you saw things there, which were extraordinary things, the presence of the Americans there and American senators and CIA agents and all the usual spooks and all of those people there. So this is an authoritative statement of policy, of what was going on. And we also have, you know, this curtain lifting sometimes under those debates. And one of them was that debate that you mentioned in our previous program we did with you,

the one in the National Security Council, rejecting your very affordable plan to stabilize the financial system. system in Russia, which, by the way, I remember at the time, and the amounts of money was small. I mean, relative to what we've been spending, I mean, they're infinitely small. It would not have cost a lot at all. And Alexander, just to say about that, you know, as we talked about it, when I read the minutes of this National Security Council meeting, June 3rd, 1991, I was stunned at how idiotic these Americans were. But I can tell you the worst of them, the very worst was a colleague of mine at the Kennedy School of Government, a man named Richard Darmann, who was at the time the head of the

Office of Management and Budget. And when people read this stuff, which they will read, Darwin talks about, well, we have to do a PR stunt. We have to do PR to show that we care, but we're going to do the minimal possible. And then he, he's. and another economist named Michael Boskin at Stanford are the two ringleaders to say, the reforms are impossible. They're just impossible. We're not going to do anything. We have to be Machiavellian in this. We have to do the least possible. Gorbachev's a showman. You know, you look at this stuff and you cry because it's so ignorant. And also, how can a government work at a pivotal moment like this? They should have given me a phone call for God's

sake. Talk about it. They should have talked to Grigory Evlinsky, who was the still a leading politician in Russia and was the advisor of Gorbachev. They didn't even lift a finger. They just knew. And that's the American arrogance. They just know the truth. They don't have to talk to anybody. They don't have to study anything. They don't have to listen to the other side. They just know. And that's what comes out of this. And in terms of cost, by the way, I'll tell you one more, story. In November 1991, after the pooch that had taken Gorbachev down, but a month before the end of the Soviet Union formally, Yeltsin was already the dominant political figure. Soviet Union was on its way of ending, and Yeltsin was the leader at the time. Gorbachev was already basically in the

shadows and on his way out. And Yeltsin's economic advice. who became an acting prime minister after that, Yeager Gaidar, asked me to come to Moscow to talk to him and his team about the urgent economic situation. So I went to the Dacha outside of Moscow and I talked with them. And in November of 1991, the Soviet Union had debts falling due. And they were running out of reserves. This was a financial. crisis. This was also a revolution, but it was a financial crisis, a very acute financial crisis. So I've been involved in lots of financial crises on how to end them, and I've successfully helped to end several. And I said the most standard thing in the cookbook, the first thing you learn

about this is a standstill on debt repayments pending a stabilization program. So the so-called G7 deputies were on their way. That's the finance ministered deputies, led by the United States, of course. And I said to guide her, okay, ask them for a debt standstill. And I waited in the outside room as he went in and met the G7 deputies in November 1991. And he came out an hour later, ashen faced. And I said, Yeager, what happened? And he said, they told me if we don't pay every penny on time. They will stop the food shipments that are on the high seas right now. They threatened the Soviet Union. They threatened the Russians. You must spend down every penny of your foreign exchange reserves. This is madness in the context of the end of the Cold War trying to make peace,

democratization. The United States is demanding something they wouldn't even demand in normal times that every penny must be paid at every moment. So the stupidity is a big part of it, but it's the deliberateness of it that is, like you say, shocking. This is not accident. This is a combination of arrogance and stupidity. And cynicism. I mean, when people start quoting or bragging that they're going to be Machiavellian,

what is that, if not an admission? of cynicism. And the same about the conversation you had with Jake Sullivan. I, Ukraine, will never join NATO, but we can't say that in public. We're going to, it is, I, by the way, I remember, I remember. I was standing out, and I was skiing that day, I'm standing out in the free, in the freezing cold on my, on my mobile. And I said, Jake, we're going to have a war over something that isn't actually going to happen and you're not going to say it? And he said, Jeff, don't worry, don't worry. There's going to be diplomacy.

There's going to be no war. Of course, that's the man who said two weeks before October 7, 2023, that the Middle East is the most quiet and stable that it's been for two decades. That's our political leadership, for God's sake. He couldn't predict a war in a moment. month and he couldn't understand what was happening in the Middle East and he's our national security advisor. Absolutely. Just to finish, go and read that speech. This is my advice to everybody who's watching this program. Read that speech through. Try and get the whole text because there are

condensed versions, listen to it because it is, as I said, it sets it all out. It does so very clearly and it shows us as that it's intentional all the way and it has led us to catastrophe and just to say on that promise not to extend NATO eastwards I have memory

I remember watching Hans Dietrich Gensher going on British television be interviewed about this saying not an inch east I remember reading articles in all the newspapers that now deny that promise was ever made the guard

in the times, the financial times. They're all talking about it at the time. As I said, I remember it. I mean, it's always astonished me that people pretend that promise was never given. Whether the people who gave that promise were acting in good faith, that I don't know. But that the promise was made of that,

there is no doubt at all. I leave the last word to you, Jeffrey, obviously, just as we have, you know, know, a time point to finish. You know, probably the best book on American foreign policy in maybe half century plus, it was a book by then Senate chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the United States, Jay William Fulbright, in the mid-1960s called The Arrogance of Power. and he used that title to explain the Vietnam War.

And that arrogance did not end. And that is really the point. In fact, it went into hyperdrive with the end of the Cold War, so-called end of the Cold War, let's say with the end of the Soviet Union. The United States could not understand peace and mutual respect. To tell you the truth, I don't know whether we are, at the end of that hyper arrogance or not, I think we're at the end of the war in Ukraine. I'm convinced of it. I think President Trump has this right. And there's a lot of deep state

forces telling him, no, no, no, no, no, go back. You got to put on sanctions. You have to recharge Ukraine and so forth. But I think he understands this is completely a losing hand. And I think the Europeans as foolish and idiotic as they are in their rhetoric right now, I can't do anything about it. So the war will end. It could end on the basis of the Istanbul draft agreement, April 15th, 2022, another of these profound missed opportunities, because we could have had a million Ukrainian lives saved,

to people who are dead now or gravely wounded, none of it needed to happen. Because even a month after the special military operation started, there was a draft agreement to end it. And the United States and UK, of course, famously said no, in their arrogance, in their poker playing. Well, we'll raise the stakes. We'll bluff Russia. They'll never mobilize. They'll fold when they see the economic sanctions and so forth. And that's probably a million or more casualties of Ukrainians since that moment. We have other conflicts. I hope we can talk about them soon. The Middle East scares the wits out of me because Israel has controlled U.S. foreign policy for decades. I don't know whether that's over. I want Donald Trump to have an America foreign policy,

not an Israel made foreign policy. If he does, that war could end immediately also because that's also a war of choice. Do you back Israeli extremism, which the United States has done for 30 years in its arrogance and its foolishness and its recklessness? Or do you have peace in the Middle East? So for me, the big question is, you know, are we done with this phase of war-making relentlessly in history, One war is going to end soon, Ukraine. The Middle East, it's big stakes and what will happen with the U.S. and China. Again, there are a lot of arrogant thinkers who could lead the U.S. and the world into complete disaster

unless they learn some diplomacy. Final note, I'm hoping that Europe wakes up. It will. It has to. It's so unreal right now. when you're delusional like a cartoon character that's kind of run off the roof, but you're hanging in the air before you look down and you realize there's nothing below, they're going to realize, oh, my God, we were, we just gave away our foreign policy for decades and we need to get back to sanity. We haven't heard a word of it yet in Europe, by the way, what we heard from Macron was the opposite of saying marching, off to war or flying off to war from Starmor completely nuts.

But people are out on the streets now in Paris and elsewhere and in Bucharest. They don't want this anymore. And even though they're being forced into this, these leaders are so unpopular. And the public knows so much better that there will be a change in Europe too, I believe. I completely agree. Professor Sachs, we're definitely going to have you back. We're going to talk about the Middle East. We're going to talk about some of the proposals,

some of the ideas you have about how to arrange the peace in Ukraine, which are very interesting and involve the United Nations. We might ask you perhaps to bring Mr. Schulenberg to discuss those because he knows so much about that too. That might be an idea, just the thought. But we understand that you have to finish now. I want to thank you again and say that speech to the, European Parliament, completely not reported in the mainstream media here in London, by the way, just to say.

But all over the internet, everybody's talking about it across the internet. And it will be a historic document of that, I absolutely no doubt, at all. When people want to understand what has been happening, not just over the last few years, but over the 30 years that led up to it, they will go to that speech. So thank you, Professor Sachs, and speak to you soon. And again, great to be with you guys. And thanks so much. Thanks for the fantastic you work you guys do every single day.

It's absolutely vital. And you've been so right every day. And so I'll be listening in later today. Thank you. Thank you, Professor Sachs. Take care. Take care. Alexander, are you with us?

Oh, yeah, absolutely. I'm fired up, actually. I have to say, absolutely, yes. You know, they're all days. I mean, I'm somebody who tries to keep, you know, by temper under control, as we all know, but there are days when I do get very, very angry. And I mean, listening and then reading Professor Sachs' speech at times really did make me very, very angry. I mean, for example, just to give an example, Jake Sullivan, this conversation he had with Professor Sachs,

was he lying? When he said, you know, we're not going to bring Ukraine ever into NATO. He could have been lying. It's possible, given the cynicism of these people. I mean, it's equally bad, it seems to me, whether he was lying or telling the truth. Just to say, but reading, looking at that, as I said, I was shaking when I read it. Yeah, you could find that speech for everyone that's wondering about the speech. It's on YouTube.

It's on X. Just punch it up in search. And you'll find it. It's everywhere. And it's a fantastic speech. Yeah. Absolutely. Let's knock out the questions. Absolutely.

There we have. Yeah, absolutely. From Fuzzy Ball's question for Dr. Sachs, does Trump realize that Ukraine already signed over all of their mineral rights to the UK in the 100-year cooperation agreement? Actually, we talked about that before we started the show Fuzzy Balls. Anyway, we talked about that with Professor Sacks right before he went live. Alexander, do you want to comment on that? Well, very briefly, I'm sure he does.

No, I can tell you that he does. The point is, these mineral rights don't exist. So we're trading him for something that is no reality. This is so like the whole issue of Ukraine altogether, by the way. There is so much here that his smoke and mirrors and illusion of theatre and bombast and propaganda and lying and fiction. and if the British think they're going to get huge numbers of minerals, they're absolute suckers. I think the Americans who are not suckers in the same way, know perfectly well that there are no minerals.

It's possible, as some people speculate, that the Americans insisting on the mineral rights deal was intended in some ways to put the British in their place. It wouldn't surprise me. But I think it's become absolutely clear over the last two weeks. that for the Americans, the real purpose of that deal, when I say the Americans, I mean Trump and Vance and their team. The real purpose of that deal was to get Zelensky to sign it as an earnest of his good faith in terms of negotiating a peace settlement with the Russians. When instead of doing that, he came along and was talking about security guarantees

and military alliances, but the Americans coming to help, then the Americans knew that he was not really sincere about negotiating with the Russians in the way that they wanted him to be. And that was ultimately what was behind that blow up in the Oval Office. Yeah, I agree. I know a setup when I see it, and I think the whole Minerals deal thing was a setup.

Absolutely. The reporter asking the question, all of it, Trump's talking about it. I think the whole thing was a setup to do. exactly what you say. Well, and as Alex has pointed out, he's done employment contracts, which are longer and more sophisticated and more detail than that. I mean, that is not an agreement actually to do anything about anything. I mean, if you read it, it's not even, it's not, it's not, it doesn't even, it doesn't even have commitments, real commitments in any place. It should not, People are over-analyzing it, just as so.

I agree on that one. Absolutely. Port Film Co-op says, please bring on the academic agent, Nema Parvini again. Yeah. Oh, yeah, absolutely. We'd love to.

Lots of discuss with him and a brilliant guest, and a brilliant guest, and somebody I'd really enjoy talking to, if I can say. Matthew says, I am sick of Trump already. Nothing has changed. Intel and arms still flow.

Trump cannot walk away from this. Well, no, I do. think so. The Russians, people like Pushilin, have said, where we haven't really noticed any difference. But clearly there has been a difference because the Ukrainians are complaining about it. The Europeans are complaining about it and all of that. If nothing was happening, why would Trump, why would the team go out and get all this criticism directed at themselves and actually sit back and do nothing? The reality is. is I've no doubt that they have at least paused military supplies and intelligence supplies.

But the further reality is it will take several weeks before you start to notice any difference if it is maintained. This is a squeeze on Ukraine. We'll see what comes of it. Yeah. Peristeris says Galimera. Kalimera. Galemera. Matthew says, is Europe deranged enough to go into Ukraine? No, actually, I don't think so. They are deranged.

They are deranged. They are deranged. But the whole purpose of this is to get the United States involved. They know they can't do this without the United States. If the United States says categorically no, which is what it's said up to now, then they won't do it. Now, I say Europe, of course, it's important to remember. there are lots of different parts of Europe. I mean, there's some very strange people in Baltic states, for example.

If I was to say that Lithuania absolutely categorically will not send its troops into Ukraine, I wouldn't be telling the truth. I mean, I think some people there are deranged enough to do it. But in Britain, in France, I don't think it will happen. I think there would be a massive public backlash if it was ever attempted. and I think Macron's stalemonei. I think you're exactly right, Alexei. I'm just picturing in my head the Baltic states actually launching some sort of a strike against Russia.

I think there are some people there that would actually do it. Absolutely, yes. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah, it's nuts. Saddam says, it's amazing how the EU is looking more and more like the USSR in the 80s. Is there any reason for the EU to even exist in its current state? You know, there is absolutely no reason.

I mean, people make this parallel with the USSR, and they're completely right to. There's an awful lot that is similar. I'm going to say this. It's a more sinister place than the USSR was in the 1980s. I stress in the 1980s, I'm not comparing it with the USSR of the 1930s, for example, which is a period of mass terror, gulags, well, that kind of thing. But the USSR of the 1980s was a bumbling, creaking empire that was, you know, in decay. The European Union today is far more sinister than what the Soviet Union was then.

And absolutely, it should be laid to rest. We see what's happening in Romania now. Matt Taibi, by the way, has written a really good piece about this, just a say. Shamm, thank you for that. Super chat. Game of chairs. It says Putin could stick it to the West by insisting on North Korean peacekeepers.

Well, he's going to Yeah, would be very funny, actually. I don't think he's going to be peacekeepers of any kind. This is my impersonal of you. Yeah, Sadejava part one of two, Alexander. San Jeva says, although I am a Buddhist from SL, my heart breaks to see ancient Christian minorities wiped out from the Middle East. Assyrian, Armenian minorities are almost non-existent since Iraq invasion of 2003. Why is the USA silent?

Do you think Russia can step in? What are the limitations for Russia to save these minorities, at least the Alawites and Christians in Russian airbase? You know, you're completely right. It is absolutely tragic. What makes it even more tragic tragic is, of course, it was totally predictable. The moment Al Jolani and his followers entered Damascus, it was inevitably going to happen. Just saying, I mean, if you know anything at all about the history of the region, if you know anything at all about what HDS is, if you know about Jolani's background,

you would know that sooner or later we would be where we are. So all of that euphoria, all of those people talking about the great new dawn for the Syrian people, either they were delusional fools, and there are some, or they were lying, and they were prepared to continue to play this sinister game of geopolitical chess in the Middle East, sacrificing these ancient communities in exactly the way that you said. Ancient communities, which, I mean, it's important to remember how ancient, ancient they are. All of these communities, apart from the Druze, were there before the fall of the Roman Empire. Just saying, if you're talking about the Assyrians, they go long before the fall of the Roman Empire. There were a great empire themselves, a great civilization themselves, and they're being obliterated. We're talking about people in who, for example, the last people, the Assyrians, who actually speak Aramaic. the language of Jesus as an actual living language.

I'm known Assyrians, and I've heard them speak to me in Aramaic and recite the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic. So imagine that. And as I said, they're being driven out. And the extraordinary thing is the Americans are saying a few things about it. The State Department, Rubio, has said a few things. The Europeans are supporting the current regime. in Damascus.

The media here in London is not reporting any of the things that you're talking about. They're not showing any of the film of these poor people in the Russian bases escaping from what has happened. People here in Britain continue to hear from their government that this is a good thing that Al Jalani took Damascus. they're continuing to hear from their government that the people who are behind all the trouble in Syria are Assad loyalists

who are trying to overthrow this new democratic, wonderful government that's established itself in Damascus. The cynicism of it is just terrible. What can the Russians do? I think at this present moment in time very little. When the Russians intervened in Syria in 2015, They had a functioning government to work with. They had armed forces, Syrian armed forces to ally themselves with.

They had Iranian allies in place. What did the Russians have now? Very little. Who are, what are they going to do? Fight Erdogan, Syria, all by themselves. You know, the Al Jalani's people all by themselves. I think that in Moscow, they are going to say to themselves, this is terrible. They're working with the Americans to pass this resolution through the Security Council.

But the practical reality is that they can at this moment in time do very little other than to provide sanctuary for those people on those air bases, which is what they're doing. The key word that you said there is Erdogan. Not many people talk about that. No, no, they don't. Absolutely not. Erdogan is the key player. He is the key decision maker. If you want to try and get these communities saved,

you need to speak to him. Not that he will do anything, to be honest, because he doesn't care about these people either. We the captain now says, what is the EU end game? What do they stand for today? You tell me, I mean, I think they still have this obsession,

you know, integrate, control, establish the EU empire, as it's become, something very, very far removed from the Confederation of sovereign states that de Gaulle and others were thinking about in the 60s, just to say. But I mean, that's still, I think, their ultimate long-term objective. And part of the panic and hysteria and anger that we see in Europe at the moment is because there's this growing fear that without the Americans it can't be done. Mattias says, what is the future of democracy in Europe?

Well, at the moment, it has never been threatened more since the fall of the Berlin Wall. I mean, democracy supposedly spread to Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin War. And what we now see is that it's being threatened by Western Europe, people in Western Europe, people in Brussels. They're taking democracy from the Romanians away. the democracy that the people of Romania bought for when they overthrew the Chashevsky regime. Sangeva, thank you for that super sticker. Newtou says you, three of you, valuable time is changing the world for the better.

Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Peter Zemin says, is it possible that the U.S. makes a deal with the UA and then marches in with its army to protect assets, spending that, Russia will not attack them. Well, I think that there are probably some, as I said before, deranged people in Europe who might think in that way.

But without the United States, they can't do it. It's as simple as that. And so far, the United States is saying no. And if the Russians get the sense that the United States might say yes, then that bears any hope of peace. Because the Russians won't agree a ceasefire and they'll make absolutely. clear that there will be an attack on any European or indeed American forces that go into Ukraine in that way. Nicholas Walker says Russia has a very hostile EU talking about rearming and the US which changes geopolitical policy at a whim. Could they possibly carry on past Ukraine?

No, I don't think that's their intention at all. I think the Russians have a very, very strong understanding of the limits of their power. I think that's a thing to say. So they can they will prevail in Ukraine. But I think they understand that if they were to go further into Europe, well, what good would it do them? I mean, why would Russia want to run affairs in Berlin again? I mean, it didn't do them much good before. You talk to Russians. They will tell you that running affairs in Berlin during the Cold War brought us nothing but trouble. So I don't think they will do it. I think they will understand that if they start moving westward in that kind of way, they will repeat all the problems that the Soviet Union faced. They will become the Soviet Union all over

again, which they absolutely don't want to be. And they will take on burdens that are greater than they can bear and they will also take risks which are far greater than any risks they want to entertain so i think that they have no plans beyond ukraine maybe eventually you know work towards some reincorporation or you know some kind of reunification with belarus perhaps with other territories in ukraine i don't think there are any plans to go beyond this puttin said it they have no interest in the west of ukule of They don't consider the west of Ukraine to have any connection with Russia or with Russia. Absolutely. Absolutely. It's not that different. If you go back in time, it's the kind of attitude that Kamal Ataturk had about Turkey. He said, I want Turkey. I don't want the empire back. I don't want the Ottoman Empire back. I want a Turkey for Turks. And the mood in Russia today,

is Russia, a Russia made up of Russians, not a Russia that's expanded all the way to incorporate all sorts of people who are not Russians and who do not want to be ruled from Moscow. It's as simple as that. Lelu says, why didn't they go ahead and split up Russia after the Soviet Union fell? I think if there was any time to go through with that plan, it would have been then. Well, of course it would have been, but it didn't happen because the Russians at that time were determined even then to hold Russia together. And this is the, this is a think, because I was very, very following very closely the debates in Russia at that time. And by the way, I have to say this, a major political figure who played a major role in consolidation was Zuganov, who was there. then and still now, the leader of the Russian Communist Party.

And he was constantly telling people, look, we do not want insurrections, revolutions, uprisings, or civil wars in Russia. Because if we do, that will create a terminal crisis from which Russia will never come back. Because the West is waiting and watching, and we must not open the door to them. So, you know, he played that role. And whatever people say about him, was an absolutely key role and one that should not be forgotten. It was why he accepted the outcome of the 1996 presidential election, even though it was stolen

from him. Mario Menez says it doesn't make any sense to make deals when these deals can be overthrown at any time or have money inverted when it can be freeze or seized any time. Go to the Russian media. You will find that every day. People talk about that all the time. Everybody understands this. The Russians are coming to these discussions with no trust at all.

That's why they're going to drive a very hard bargain. Paula Samek says, could Bricks oppose the UN Agenda 2030, CBDCs, 15 miles citizens, etc., successfully? Yes. I mean, they were press forward. Yes, yes. I mean, they will press forward with the agenda that they had, have, which is the agenda that they outlined in Kazan.

And to repeat again, and remember Kazan, the Kazan meeting happened when Biden was still the president of the United States, and we knew nothing at all about what Trump, that, you know, Trump was going to do. I mean, at that time in Kazan, there were no plans to set up reserve currencies. The means to do it at the moment do not exist. And there's no need for them,

because in a few years' time, we will have other things coming, digital currencies probably, and all of that. And reserve currencies, as we have known them, will cease to matter. William says, what's your take on the drone strikes on Moscow?

Yeah, they were huge. It's something that the Ukrainians have been working on constantly. They send fleets of drones, the vast majority of them are shot down. A few of them get through and do minimal damage. In the case of the attack on Moscow, I'm sure it was partly intended to take away attention from the disaster that's playing out in Kusk region.

He always does. And it makes absolutely no difference. It's theatre. He always does it. He does always does this kind of thing, exactly. Yeah, he always does. Whenever, actually, if anything, Alexander, it shows the fact that this was such a massive strike

into Russia shows what a big defeat he is about to suffer in Kursk. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Panage Productions says, what do you make of Brian Berlittick's opinion about the U.S. feud with Europe being fake, also U.S. promoting peace as a pause to buy time like with Hillary, Hillary Clinton? It is not fake. I mean, here I have to say I disagree with Brian.

I mean, I live in London, and I can tell you, the anger and the hysteria here is absolutely real. And not just in London, across Europe. They are absolutely furious about what is happening. They do not want to see peace or anything of that kind. I mean, I think that sometimes we mustn't over-analyze these things. anger and hysteria, I can say, are impossible to fake on this game. Just saying.

I think there are probably parts of the U.S. government. I mean, it's a big government, a big deep state that are liaising with Europe and telling Europe. Don't worry, we'll fix things. We'll get things sorted out. But the Europeans, the leadership of the Europeans, absolutely despise Trump. They always have. Absolutely. From 2016, they despise Trump.

Yes. So there are probably two different forces at work when it comes to the U.S. and Europe. Eddie C. says the U.S. constantly shoots themselves in the foot. They woke up the Russian bear and pushed them into the arms of the Chinese. Well, indeed, yes. I mean, this is another point to make, which is that what Trump is trying to do is based on an objective understanding. of American interests. If you look at it in these terms,

then everything that the Trump administration is trying to do makes sense. And American interests say the war in Ukraine is being lost. Russia and China have come closer together. We need the Russians to talk about all kinds of things. Our plan to break them up has failed. their military, their other side's military, is getting stronger and stronger all the time. So we've got to bring this to a stop.

That makes complete objective sense. And from an American point of view. Nick, Masilovich, thank you for a super sticker. Panos, thank you for that awesome super chat. Costa 910 says, which is the first flag that hangs on the White House, and there was only two in U.S. history, in the support to fight over oppression.

When the USA redempt for what they did to Serbia, then it would be peace in the world. Well, we're going to have, we're going to a long, long, long way from that point. We can get peace in Ukraine, some kind of rapprochement between the Russians and the Americans, and at least a dialogue between them. And I think that's as much as we can expect at the moment, by the way,

then that's a step forward. Wider, bigger things, world peace and all of that, is a work in progress, which is going to take decades to do. I mean, reversing the damage done by the neocons, I mean, that's going to take more than decades. Arcane Eclectic says, could you start announcing upcoming live streams the day prior on your personal channels or the community tabs of this channel? Thanks for a great show.

We'll try. A lot of times we get the times and the dates ironed out less than 24 hours before we go live. But we'll try. We'll try to get the... I must remember that our guests are very, very busy people. All of them are. I mean, you saw Professor Sacks, for example, had only 30. minutes to give us. So when we ask people to come, you know, it's not always possible to prepare

many days in advance. But as Alex says, we will try. Toxico Fernando says, as a South American leftist, I see the so-called far right from Europe seeing outside of the box of the mainstream power and media. The rise of the European far right could be good for the global south part of my English. Yes, absolutely. I completely agree with you. I mean, The thing to understand is that the so-called left in Europe, you know, the left in Europe that I remember, the social democratic left that I used to be a part of, you know, once upon a time long ago in the 1970s, doesn't exist in Europe anymore. If you are looking for any creative discussion, it comes exclusively from the right now,

because that's where the opposition is. A Hungarian academic actually told me. He was absolutely a writerist, conservative, social conservative writers. He says if you want to look for genuine European social defecocracy, find it in today's Viktor Orban's right-wing Christian Hungary. He's absolutely right. Howdy, Christoph, thank you for a super sticker.

double down says, leaving Europe, US leaving Europe, is similar to the Brits leaving India. Yeah. Sticky Mark says, King Chucky the third as the heir to

visited Romania and said his ancestors were Romanian. Vlad Tepis, adding, So you could say I have a stake in Romania. I don't know very much. I'm not sure what you mean, but this is quite clever.

for it. Vlad Teppesh, just to tell people who don't know, most people probably do know, at least on these live streams, is the historical person. He was actually a prince, but he's the historical person upon whom Graham Stoker based the character of Count Dracula. And he was, his actual name was Vlad Dracula. Tepesh is, you know, his title. Fuzzy Ball says, most corrupt, Germany, France, or the UK, question mark. Germany. I mean, in Germany, in Germany, corruption is more pervasive, in my experience.

Britain is pretty corrupt too nowadays. Didn't used to be. Jamie Campos, welcome to the drag community. Edward Bernay says, the US are saying no backstop in Ukraine. The EU has to increase defense interests more, which means more money on U.S. military equipment. The Brit and EU are discovering.

after 70 years of cooperation in NATO, the Americans are actually Tony Soprano. In a kind of a way. Let's not be completely cynical about this. I mean, when the Americans tell the Europeans look to your own defenses, that does ultimately speak of a message of the Americans leaving eventually. It's like the Roman Emperor who told the British in 410 AD that, you know, you must from now on look to your own defenses because Rome has other more important things to do. Dustin Fisher, welcome to the Drat community. Nikos says, what are, what we are witnessing in Kursk is possibly a total event collapse.

When Suda goes, everything goes. What does it say that both Avdivka and Kursk fell because of a pipe? Men's ingenuity wins worse. And courage? I've been walking for 12 kilometers. in a pipe like that takes a huge amount of courage and extraordinary willpower. And you have to be fit beyond anything I can imagine to be able to do that. But remember, I'm a walker. And, you know, 12-kilometer walk, I mean, it's not a huge walk, but it's one that you would notice and do it, you know, doubled up through a pipe. I mean, I just can't even imagine how it's done.

Fuzzy Ball says Alex Jones and Jackson Hinkle are back on YouTube. That's great. It is great. Absolutely. That was great. Elza says, are there any refugees in the U.S. base in Syria? I haven't heard about any. Don't really wonder why.

Well, it's far away from the current fighting in the same way. I mean, you know, Latakia is where the fighting is, and Latakia is where the Russian bases are. But in other ways, you make a valid point and a point taken. John D. Thank you for that super sticker. Edward Bernice says, Alexander is absolutely correct regarding the deliberate non-reporting of the real situation in Syria. This will come back to bite Western Europe in the shape of more refugees.

Absolutely. Of course it will. It's also another step further down into the moral abyss, which we find ourselves in in Europe today. Just so. Sticky Marks says, world wonder weapon. The killing joke, rest in peace. Thank you, Sticky Marks. Nico says, I saw a good YouTuber who traveled in Syria three weeks ago. He talked to a Christian woman in Syria who felt free. And so did the population of Damascus. Is Damascus protected or is it a lie?

Yes, it is protected. It is very important for Jolani and the one to keep Damascus quiet. What is going on in the countryside is a different matter. There's been violence right across the Syria. country side, but provided they can retain the illusion of stability and peace in Damascus, they can present to the world the picture of a stable government. It's like Jalani wearing a suit and tie, just to say. Yeah, Jamila says, good morning gentlemen.

I'm so happy to catch up with a live show. Alexander, you predicted everything has come true. my mind is blown away and civil war in Sudan and Ethiopia, but nobody is talking about it. Why? Absolutely. You're quite right. You know, we've been talking to each other about talking about Sudan especially, because we did once upon a time do a few programs about Sudan. It just isn't the time.

End it, Ethiopia. The news flow, Ethiopia, too. The news flow is so intense that, and of course, we're both, we're based in Europe. And I don't want to minimize what's going on in Sudan and Ethiopia, but it's in Ukraine where the superpower clash, which is the most dangerous thing, has happened. But hopefully if we do start to see intentions between Russia and the West start to ease, that we can start to pay the kind of attention to these other things

that they absolutely merit and require. We do get to that point soon. Somebody says 12 kilometers is easy, bent over shuffling, not so easy. Well, as I said, I mean, I walk 12 kilometers. I said it can be done. It's so, I mean, you can, I mean, you would notice it. It can be done. It can be done.

I mean, it's a perfectly standard walk. It's not a particularly arduous, a long walk. But to do it, it's shuffling through a pipe. As I said, I'm in awe, actually. Yeah. and Karin says, is it true that Russia, the U.S. and Israel will balkanize Syria, that what people are saying will happen in Syria? Well, the official position of the Russian government,

and I think that they are serious about this, is that they want to see Syria united and reunited and stable again within its old historic borders. Whether that will happen, I don't know. I don't think Russia will be involved in any balkanese. enterprise. Nikos says recently, Duran, my feed has suggested a lot of Russian liberals, one of them who was funded by USAID called Zelensky's blunder, a win for evil. Can you explain what is the mentality of these people?

Well, they hate their own country. It's as simple as that. One must be careful about Russian liberals. They get a huge amount of attention and publicity in the West. which is wholly out of proportion to their numbers in Russia itself. In every country, you will find people who hate their country. That is a given. You'll find people in America who hate America,

people in Britain who hate Britain, people in Germany who hate Germany, people in Italy who hate Italy. You'll find lots more people like that in Greece who hate Greece, by the way, just to say. In Russia, these people are very few. They're not particularly liked. They carry no influence at all.

What makes them so visible and so important is that there are very powerful in the forces in the West who back and fund them. And that, of course, gives these people even more of an incentive to talk the way they do. And it gives them a profile, a public profile, which is out of all relation to their real influence and their real number. Yeah, you make a very good living if you are Russian and you talk about how you hate Russia. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, you make a very good living, yeah. Nikos says, I am really focused on these Russian liberals because I don't understand them. What is the definition of good leadership for them?

Do they want a country filthy and poor? What is wrong with them? They want to be rich themselves. I think Alex just said that. That is a major factor in their own motivation. But of course, I mean, you know, many of them, has a dislike Russia. They loathe Russia. They have this obsession with the West, which is a structural part of Russian liberalism.

But it's important to remember that never at any point in Russian history have the liberals actually won an election and a true proper democratic election. Or come close to doing so. Fuzzy Ball says sorry Jackson is back on Alex Jones is fake okay thank you for that Fuzzy Balls Jackson is still a step forward if I can say yeah yeah Tom says do you listen to Alex on Glenn's podcast

what are your thoughts on the EU purposely collapsing their economy to create large portions of young unemployed to go into the military like they did in Ukraine Alex on Glenn's podcast Could this be Alex Crane? Is it Glenn Decent? It must be. I mean, I didn't know.

Anyway, the question, what are your thoughts on the EU purposely collapsing their economy to create large portions of young unemployed to go into the military like they did in Ukraine? This is too sophisticated for the leadership of Europe. On the contrary, at the moment, they've got tremendous, fantastic, utopian plans about building vast, militaries and spending huge amounts of money and relaxing debt breaks and re-industrialising in the way that they think. I don't think that they have the level of sophistication to come up with an idea like that. I mean, you have to meet these people to see it. And, you know, both of us have met people who are connected to the EU centre. And they're not bright,

that kind of way. Jake S. says, what's your opinion on Janis Varukakis and Diem, his party, Diem? I think Janis is an absolutely brilliant economist and extremely incisive commentator. I thought that he was disastrous as a Minister of Finance. I think he was completely the wrong man in the position that he was at the time that he was in 2015. He might have been a very, very effective and useful economic advisor to the government. He was absolutely not somebody that he wanted running the finance ministry or going head to head with the Europeans. And he didn't run things or organise things at all well, just to say. And as a politician, he's completely

ineffectual. He's deeply unpopular in Greece, by the way, just to say. Niko says, these people really affect me because they don't see their country, literally rotting every day. You see it, Alex. What's been happening to Greece? Everything is filthy and destroyed. It's depressing. It's absolutely true. I think Alex was recently in Vienna and was shocked by the condition he founded in. I've been to places in France. I've been shocked by the condition I found those in. I was in Germany about a year ago, and it was the same there, and in Britain, of course, also. That is the reality of Europe today.

And then you go east, you go to, well, you know, Russia, but even places in Eastern Europe, and of course, China and places like that, and you find things completely different. And when things are decaying and falling apart in that kind of way, When they're dirty, when rubbish isn't collected, when you see graffiti everywhere, that is a sign that things are going very, very badly wrong. It is something that shows you that there is a deeper disease, that the country has lost itself respect, that the people have lost their confidence. If people are confident and happy, they don't allow those, that kind of surroundings around them.

themselves. Niko says, I know you are busy, but can I request as Greeks to make a video about the sad state of Greece? We are literally a zombie country. It's disgusting. We should do, actually. We used to do programs about Greece. We should do some again, actually. Yeah. Elza says, Alexander, how did the British see the Zelensky visits with the king in his costume? His costume. How impressive was the last visit? Will Trump still visit the king? Well, at the moment, and I think we have to be straightforward about this, there's an upward bump in Stama's popularity and Zelensky's popularity because the media here has created this narrative of Zelenskyy standing up heroically to this enormous bully Donald Trump who the British don't like. I mean, you know, the British have never liked Trump. I'm talking about the wider British population because, you know, there's been,

relentless campaign against Trump. And he doesn't come over very well to the British. I mean, he's very American in a way that Britons generally do not understand. So there is this upward bump at the moment. It won't last. Eventually, it will fade. And as for the king, well, people see him mostly, I think, as an amiable and harmless old gentleman.

I don't think they think very much about him most of the time. Sticky Mark says Sticky, the vampire killer, just saying. Thank you for that sticky. Bin Linders, thank you for joining the Duran community. Lover of the Russian team says Europe is a blank. Blank hole.

Fuzzy Ball says, if the USA leaves NATO, how long can NATO survive? No one is intimidated by the EU except Romania. Certainly the EU is not respected outside of Europe. It's an excellent point. a European politician from Slovakia made exactly that point. He said, you know, Europe now is on bad terms of the United States, with Russia, with China.

Most of the global South disagree with them. They're completely isolated. And yet, and yet, they still insist that they're right and everyone else is wrong. They are isolated. Russia is going to be isolated. Russia's going to be isolated. Europe's isolated. Yes.

Yeah. Ben Lind says, what do you guys think about market? Parney. Come on. Prime Minister of Canada. Bank of England. Bank of England. Absolutely.

Former Bank of England head. Now, I mean, he's going to be a man. No. That's the short time. I mean, look at, look at what a wonderful condition person is in. So, no, of course he didn't do a good job. And but, you know, he's liberal. He's, you know, anchored in, you know, the right kind of politics.

He's very close to the Labour Party here in Britain, by the way, just a sec. And he's going to be someone who will come across to the Canadian people as rather more conventional than Justin Trudeau. And that might help him, at least in the short term. But it will be Trudeauism without Trudeau. with a man with very little personality, if I have to say. I mean, he was not a tremendously charismatic figure when we had him here in London. He was somebody that functioned better

in the sort of octal circuits in London, I think, that he ever played with the wider public. Whereas Trudeau did have a kind of ghastly charisma, which I never understood myself, but which did appeal to some sort, to some kind of, you know, liberal Canadian public, and by the way,

liberal British public, which I doubt that Carney will ever be able to read. Denise Cervantes says, I just want to say that you guys are great and I have learned so much from you. Thank you. Thank you, Denise. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you,

super chat. And Alex, I think that's Alexander. I think that's everything. Well, that was a terrific live stream. I really am hoping that we can have Professor Sachs with us a lot more over the next couple of weeks because he has come up with some very interesting ideas about how to settle the conflict in Ukraine. I don't know whether people are listening to what he's saying. But even if those ideas in themselves are not taken forward, he's talking about bringing back.

back the United Nations and the Security Council. And that would mean, by the way, reorganisation of the United Nations, at least of the Secretariat of the United Nations, back to the fall in ways that used to be the case during the Cold War. And that would be very interesting. So he's got a lot to say there. And anyway, we'll see where he goes.

But it was a wonderful program, a wonderful live stream, amazing questions, again, from everybody here. And, well, I hope we'll do more, and we'll be back anyway very soon. Yeah, we'll be back very soon. We'll get some videos up as well today. And that's it. Thank you to everyone that watched us on Odyssey, on Rockfinn and Rumble, YouTube, the durand.com.

Thank you so much to our moderators as well. Angry Warhawks, Zareel, Peter. I think those were our moderators for today. And Alexander, let's, oh wait, there's one more question. What do you guys? No, no. Just crashed. My browser just crashed on YouTube.

Yeah. It happens. It happens. We'll catch up with you. We'll ask you. Yeah. Yeah, we'll save it and we'll look at it later. We'll ask it that.

All right. All right. Take care, everybody. Thank you.