The Duran Podcast - Long range missiles and Zaluzhny panic

Episode Date: January 6, 2024

Long range missiles and Zaluzhny panic

All right, Alexander, let's talk about Russia getting weapons from North Korea. We've been here before, haven't we? It seems like they've resurrected this Russia getting weapons from North Korea narrative. But here we are. Russia is purchasing missiles from North Korea, and they're using those missiles, or they used those missiles on the latest strikes in Ukraine. So here we are again. Russia is, I guess I'm to assume that Russia's low on weapons, Russia's running out of weapons.

The Russian military is in a terrible state because they're running to North Korea. I mean, the axis of evil again. I mean, what exactly are we to make of these latest statements from the Biden White House with regards to North Korea and Russia? Well, I mean, the first thing to say is that I don't know whether the Russians have bought missiles from North Korea. I mean, they bought drones from Iran, so it's not inconceivable, I suppose, that they might buy weapons from North Korea. But I must make a point, which is that there's been repeated claims about the Russians using North Korean artillery ammunition. There's been these claims about missiles from North Korea. there is really no evidence, apart for, you know, pictures of containers being moving around

railway lines and things of that kind. There's not really been much in the way of evidence to support any of these claims on the battlefronts. No evidence that would remotely, remotely satisfy a court of law, just say, so I don't know what to make about this, but I would say this. I mean, I don't know whether it's true or not. But I'm going to say this. This is a very convenient story for the United States to be coming up with now. Now, there's a number of reasons why I think that this is coming up. Firstly, these two big missile strikes, missile and drone strikes, that the Russians have launched on Ukraine, the one on the 29th of December, and the one on the 2nd of January, have been. Have, been absolutely devastating. I mean, they have been the most powerful missile strikes that the Russians

have ever launched at any time during this war. And it's clear that the Ukrainians and the Americans and their Western allies are shocked by them. There is now accumulating evidence that at least two Patriot missile systems or batteries have been destroyed, one in Kiev, one in a railway, on a rail, on a train in Herson region. There's now accumulating pictures of industrial facilities around Kiev, also massively destroyed. Huge amount of damage has been done. There are many reports that top people within the Ukrainian military

were killed as well as a result of these strikes. And other parts of the air defense system that the West has so painstakingly tried to create in Ukraine have been smashed and damaged as well. So firstly, you have to come up with a information explanation about why this has happened. All the evidence is that the major damage to all of these facilities has been done by hypersonic missiles launched from Russian aircraft. the Kinshals backed by these subsonic missiles, the KH101s. So you don't want to talk about the KINJALs because you've been spending the last year trying to play down the danger from the KINJALs. You say that it's all due to ballistic missiles. The Russians are supposed to be

running low on ballistic missiles. You talk instead about them buying these missiles from North Korea. you're able to talk about North Korea and then you come along to Congress and say, well, look, North Korea is an enemy of our country. Russia is an enemy of our country. These two enemies of our country are coming together. They're fighting this war together. They're now clearly allies. So that makes it even more important for us to get funding to support Ukraine because we're not just fighting the Russians in Ukraine. we're fighting the North Koreans as well. The more missiles, the North Koreans give the Russians, the fewer missiles, presumably the North Koreans, have to use against us and our friends in South Korea and Japan.

So you could see that logic, that kind of argument, play out as well. And then there is a third thing, which is that there's increasing talk now about trying to counter these devastating Russian missile strikes on Ukraine by supplying long-range missiles to Ukraine. Radek-Sikorsky, the Polish Foreign Minister, came out and said that. I'm now seeing more reports to this effect on the British media that this is supposedly a good idea.

So how do you justify doing that? How do you justify launching missiles against Russia itself? Because that's what it demands to. launching missile strikes on the Russian port, for example, the Novorosirsk, Bryansk, and Rostov, with Taurus missiles from Germany, conceivably Tomahawk missiles? Well, you say that it's the Russians who have broken all the rules or crossed all the red lines,

because they are buying missiles from the North Koreans. The North Koreans, who are this country that is, supposed to be this ultimate rogue state led by this eccentric and bizarre dictator. And if the Russians are prepared to do that, then clearly they're a rogue state themselves. And it's were justified in supplying every conceivable type of long-range missile, long-range attackens missiles, long-range tourist missiles, perhaps even Tomahawk missiles, to the Ukrainians. And who knows who else in Ukraine, by the way, but that's another story.

But anyway, to the Ukrainians in order to counter this devastating and terrible threat from this new axis of evil, which has emerged. So you could see the propaganda value of all of this and where it might lead up to. Yeah, Kirby's statement where he created this connection. You could tell that this was a very carefully prepared and scripted statement meant to accomplish the goals that you outlined. I mean, the ultimate goal at the end of the day is to get the money. Obviously, the timing of all of this, you know, a few days before Congress. The most important thing for the Biden White House is to get that $61 billion. And Kirby says it at the end of his statement.

He says, you know, this is why we need money. So, I mean, he pretty much revealed what this was all about. Yes. But, you know, note what the money is probably going to be used for. It's not going to be used to supply tanks because they can't really. The Abrams tanks have been a washout, apparently, and the leopard twos have burnt all the steps. So they're not going to do that. They're not going to supply artillery ammunition because they can't.

The State Department is saying they're going to have to reduce aid. So more likely than not, it's going to be long-range missiles. Air defence missiles have been a failure. Patriots are failing. The Naysam's missiles are being knocked out. apparently three or three batteries of those over the last few weeks. So now go for long-range missiles. Engage in a long-range missile war.

That was where I was, yeah, exactly. That was my question to you is, okay, so everything is leading towards, they want to get the money, but everything is leading towards this new wonder weapon. For me, this is like the wonder weapon before the ultimate wonder weapon, which is the F-16s. So the F-16s is the ultimate wonder weapon, but, you know, that's been stop and go. Okay. And, you know, who knows when the F-16s are going to come online.

So, so this long-range missile narrative is going to fill in the gap. And this is the new latest and greatest wonder weapon. So my question to you is, okay, this narrative works. And Congress says, oh, my God, you know, Russia is getting long-range missiles from North Korea. And that's why Kirby was very specific in a statement to mention the fact that these missiles have a range of 900-collar. He wanted to make that point. So it's obvious what they're doing. This is really easy to figure out.

So, you know, Johnson, Speaker of the House, he says, oh, my God, we have to approve the $61 billion right away. We have to get long-range missiles to Zelensky. And they call up Olaf Schultz, and they tell O'Liffe, you're going to deliver tourists. And O'F, of course, says, yes, I'll deliver the tourists. And they get the long-range missiles. What then? They launch long-range missiles towards, you mentioned some cities. You mentioned ports in Crimea.

You mentioned Rostov. People who aren't familiar with Rostov know that you're talking very much mainland Russia, an important city in Russia, the south of Russia. Moscow, other cities in Russia. What happens then? Well, I mean, because they never talk about the Russian side of things. But anyway, yeah. What happens then?

Well, it confirms not just to the Russians, first of all, but to the whole world, that the United States is in effect in a state of almost armed conflict with the Russians. I mean, bear in mind that this is going to happen at one and the same time that we're going to likely get a decision in February to seize Russian assets. And there's been a very, very powerful article in the Financial Times from an academic, a professor of Cornell, who said, what an incredibly dangerous thing that would be, that this is an act of war, and taking a step like that erodes the boundary between war and peace, providing missiles to the Russians to launch

deep strikes into Russia. Again, it erodes the boundary between war and peace. It puts the United States almost at the point where you could almost argue that it is at war with Russia. I mean, it is a clear-cut act of war. Now, how would the Russians react? This is, of course, an unknown question. But I am going to suggest, again, that even as these strikes on Russian cities are launched, the Russian response will be an incredibly disciplined one. They will continue their military operation.

they will push further and further west. They will develop, they probably already have developed to a great extent, their air defense system. And we have seen that they have the ability to absorb these blows. And I think that is what they will do. It will cement even more strongly feeling in Russia that this war needs to be brought to a victorious conclusion. They will be presented by the Russians as a terror attack. They will be presented by the Russians as a terror attack fermented by the West. It will support the Russian narrative right across the global south,

and it will make the Russian position ultimately stronger diplomatically and, of course, stronger militarily as well. Now, bear in mind, launching deep strikes on Rostov or on Nouve or Rostis or wherever is not going to change the outcome of the war. It cannot do that. The Russians have shown that they have an ability to outproduce the West in every single type of weapon. They can certainly do that in terms of terrorist missiles and even Tama Halk missiles, if TamaFork missiles are indeed supplied to Ukraine. which I, I mean, no one is talking about that, but wait for it. I predict it will come. The country that is in short of Tomahawk missiles and needs them is the United States,

because the Tomahawk missiles are the major missiles that the United States would need if it found itself in a confrontation with Iran or with China. So some people in the Pentagon will have a fitter. over this. Interesting point. And I imagine that Russia has already planned for this type of scenario. I mean, there's no doubt that they've game planned the long-range missile scenario as well. Absolutely.

So, I mean, this is not going to shock the Russian military if this does come about. No, of course it hasn't. And, I mean, they're cranking up reduction of their advanced surface to missiles. It will give them more reason to launch deeper strikes further into Ukraine. And note that long-range missiles can't substitute for a collapsing air defense system, which is what we're seeing in Ukraine now. And of course, Russia is by far the biggest country in the world. You cannot reach every part of Russia with long-range missiles far from Ukraine, it simply can't be done. I just wonder what asymmetric retaliation Russia would take towards, say, Germany or towards

countries that, like say, Germany, which would provide the tourist missile. Well, long game, long game asymmetric retaliation. Well, in a sense, the Russians don't have to take retaliation, because every step that the Germans themselves make, the British maker, the Americans make, weakens their position. Look at Germany today. The declining economy, de-industrialization. The Russians did nothing. The Germans did it all to themselves. And to repeat again, it's not going to change the military situation. Now, General Zalusini, the Ukrainian commander, I was going to ask you. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, let's talk about the military situation in

insolutione yeah yeah go ahead yeah I mean he went to the rata the Ukrainian parliament he talked about the mobilization law he came up with some questions not I thought particularly aggressive questions

and he had a total meltdown and he said you know I'm not you know he had to talk about mobilization I need soldiers I'm short of soldiers what are you going to do for me and I mean the impression I got was of a general, of an overall commander who is not that far from a nervous breakdown. I mean, that was my

impression of him. And that perhaps tells us more about the situation on the battlefronts in the realities, you know, what's going on across Ukraine, than anything we've seen up to now. And it does rather support the theory that some of his closest people were killed as a result of these Russian missile strikes. And we can see how devastating to the morale of the Ukrainian military these Russian missile strikes have been. And all of this is happening, even as the Russians continue their advances right across the battlefronts. And that's the reality. The long-range missiles are not going to change it. Yeah. I have to be honest with you. I thought the statement from Solutioni, I thought it was a good statement.

It was a complete meltdown, absolute meltdown. I completely agree with you. But, you know, he said some truths. Yeah. I have no more soldiers. So, you know, he says, I need soldiers. So that obviously means that that Ukraine has suffered terrible losses. And he needs trained soldiers like right away.

So, I mean, he gave the game away there. And, you know, he told the members of parliament, if I can't get the soldiers, then, you know, you guys have to go to the front line. I was like, okay, finally, someone is saying it. You know, you guys keep on wanting to escalate this war and fight this war against Russia. And I think there is a sense in Ukraine. And you mentioned this in your video the other day. I forgot which day you mentioned this, but in your video.

But there is a sense in Ukraine that, you know, the political class is misleading the people. This is starting to come up now. I'm talking about the citizens of Ukraine. They're starting to realize that, you know, every time Zelensky does his TikTok Instagram video or every time Podoliak or Danilov or whoever comes out and says we're winning and we're going to be victorious, and any day now Russia's going to run out of weapons, and any day now we're going to capture Crimea. It seems like the people of Ukraine, the citizens are finally starting to understand that they're being misled with all of this optimistic talk. And in his meltdown,

Zillusioni essentially says, look, you know, you guys are always talking this big game. And obviously, I can't fight this war. I'm losing. So you guys go to the front line. I mean, it was an interesting statement. In his emotion, in his emotion,

he did say a lot of truths. I completely agree with that. Now, can I just say, I mean, what I said is based on two articles that have appeared. One in the London Times, which said that the British, of fanning across Europe trying to get the Europeans to continue to provide military aid to Ukraine,

even if Donald Trump is elected president of the United States and cuts off aid entirely. But squirreled into that article was an admission from a Ukrainian commentator, not just a commentator, a major figure actually. So as most people in Ukraine now want peace and that they've intimidated and frightened, against saying it, but that is what most of them want. And that was the London Times. And there's been another article, even more interesting in some ways, in the New York Times, which says that this constant, optimistic picture about the war that Ukrainian television pumps out, is no longer believed in Ukraine any longer. The credibility, that its credibility has collapsed,

even as Zelensky's own credibility is collapsing, because people can see the real situation. And to his credit, Zalusini, over the last couple of weeks, has been giving us little morsels of the truth. So he said to the economist back, I think it was, well, I can't remember exactly when it was, but it was back in the autumn, he said, you know, that there's not going to be a breakthrough.

Great offensive didn't succeed. there was, you know, all the plans were worked out meticulously, but it failed and there's not going to be a breakthrough. And we're in stalemate and we're in a war of attrition. And if this war of attrition goes on like it's doing, then the Russians will win. And that's what he said in that article of The Economist. And now he's come along and he's met these parliamentarians. And as again, he's giving them more morsels of the truth. Tells you what he really feels. He's going to fields. I'm out of men. I'm not getting trained people. I need trained soldiers. You're not providing me with these trained soldiers. You're talking in this absurd way about, you know, going on, fighting. Why don't you go and fight yourself and find out what the

situation on the battlefront is really like? Because actually, it is terrible and it is getting worse. But the problem with Zaluzni, is that he hints at these things. But for the moment, he's still stopping shorts of actually saying, this can't go on. The war is being lost. Ukraine is going down to defeat. No weapons we get from the West are going to reverse the situation. No statements from the West are going to, from you.

are going to reverse the situation. We've got to accept the fact that we're losing the wall and find some way to make peace with the Russians. He's not prepared to say that. Now, you know, other generals in the past have done that. I've discussed at length in many programs, General Lee and how General Lee did the deal with General Grant at Appomattox courthouse in April 1865, which in effect started the process which brought the American Civil War to an end. I mean, he could see that the writing was on the wall, the battle couldn't go on, it was going to end in failure. In 1940, General Manaheim, who was the leader of the Finnish army, did exactly the same thing. He went to the Finnish government. He said, we're in the war with the Soviet Union.

the so-called Winter War of 1939, 1940. We can't win. The Russians are too strong. We've got to make peace. Zaluzni himself has referenced that action by Manaheim. He's mentioned it in the past. But he has not yet found the moral courage to do the same thing. Up to now, he comes along.

He tells them, you know, I'm going to continue to the extent that I can, even though deep down, you sense that he knows he's lost. Yeah, but can I ask you a question? Who would Zilluzni go to? I mean, who could he say this to that would listen? You can't go to the U.S., right? They won't. The Europeans, why go to them? They're useless. Zeletsky, they hate each other. I mean, I would have been. Imagine if Zelensky was to hear this. He would use it against the Lusin to finally maneuver him out. You know, Zillusioni is, he's always got to be careful about the Banderite forces, even though they say he's very tight.

I mean, I can't confirm this, but they say he's very tight with the reports. I mean, it's very tight with the banderites. I don't know. But who could he possibly go to in order to say the truth and to say it's done? It's over. we need to we need to capitulate yeah he needs to do he needs to say to the ukrainian people because you're quite correct the political class in kiev he's not going to listen and the political leaders in the west are not going to least listen either he's got to say it to the people of ukraine

and to the soldiers of ukraine who are the soldiers he commands and who he is ultimately responsible for now you can do that in one of two ways firstly he can resolve and come out and make a public statement and say, I'm resigning. My advice is not being followed. It's not being listened to. As far as I can see, the war is lost. The other side is too strong. We need to make peace.

Or he can do what Lee and Mannaheim each did, which is to take control and say, look, the political leadership is completely hopeless of the situation. I've got to open direct talks with the Russians myself, and I've got to agree with them the capitulation of the armed forces. Now, Zalusin has never shown any willingness to do that. I don't know how strong his position with other Ukrainian military commanders is. All I am saying is he's never done it. and I have to say also, I think this position that he is in is an unsustainable one.

Constantly hinting that the war is lost as he's just done, without actually following through on the implications of that, is not a position that a soldier responsible for hundreds of thousands of men, a general should find himself in. If he thinks the war is lost, he has to act. on that basis. All right. We will end it there.

The durand.orgal.com. We are in Rumble, Odyssey, Bitch, you, telegram, rock fin, and Twitter X and go to the Duran shop, 20% off. Use the code.

The Duran 20. Take care.