The Duran Podcast - NATO, West Germany model for Ukraine

Episode Date: October 7, 2024

NATO, West Germany model for Ukraine

All right, Alexander, let's talk about the land for NATO deal that is being floated out there. And this is the West Germany, the West Germany deal that was talked about a couple of years ago, actually, when they were talking about freezing the conflict and perhaps getting to a ceasefire with a model that was similar to West Germany. and eventually Ukraine would enter NATO in much the same way that West Germany did, and then you would have a reunification, and that would be the victory for the collective West. Anyway, we have a land for NATO deal being talked about. This would be the way to get to a ceasefire or freeze in the conflict. And the most incredible part about this proposal, which was outlawful.

outlined in a Financial Times article the other day is that it will be presented to Russia. At least this is what they say, this is what they're hinting at, that it will be presented to Russia as a fate, a complete, take it or else. I guess that's how they're going to present it to Russia. Anyway, what are your thoughts on land for NATO? By the way, Zeletsky has already said no to this. So what are your thoughts? Well, absolutely.

I'm going to make a guess that the sober getter, the person who's come up with this particular idea, is probably Jens Stoltenberg. He's now publicly backing it. He backed it in effect in the interviews he's giving to the Financial Times. I remember that about a year ago after the failed Ukrainian offensive in the summer of 2023, one of his officials, one of a member of a member of, Stoltenberg's kit team actually came forward and actually spoke and indicated that, you know, what needed to happen was that Ukraine needed to make territorial concessions and that it should focus on NATO entry. And then there was an outcry and the man retracted and Stoltenberg distanced himself from this. I mean, I don't remember the incident particularly well, but I remember that something like that happened. And that makes me think that Stoltenberg

is ultimately the originator of this idea. And we have an article, article about it in the Financial Times, a very detailed one. There's been a very, very long article about it in foreign affairs. Boris Johnson, who is the former British Prime Minister, who, as we know, is a fervid supporter of Ukraine. He sort of backed it in an article in The Spectator. He'd like to go even further, by the way. He wants missiles to be provided to Ukraine and attacks on Russia. He says Ukraine should be brought into NATO immediately.

Anyway, this is clearly a big head of steam now developing around this idea. And you're absolutely correct. They're talking about effect accompli. And what they really mean, and I think this has to be made quite clear, what they really are talking about is an ultimatum. The idea is this. Ukraine joins NATO. The Russians are then presented with this fact, and they're basically told, look, you can hold on for the moment to what you have. We're not going to recognize it. We consider it's still part of Ukraine, Crimea, all the territories in Donbass, Zaborogia and

Herson region, which you currently control. You can hold on to it for the moment. We were recognizing it. We will continue to insist all of that is Ukrainian, but we accept that for the moment there will be some kind of a military freeze. Eventually, we expect all of this territory to be returned to Ukraine, but we understand that this may take years or even decades. It might be like West Germany and East Germany, something like that. And in the meantime, time, if you dare cross further, advance further, deeper into Ukraine, well, Ukraine is in NATO and we will defend Ukraine on that basis. I mean, that is basically what they're saying they're going to tell the Russians. Now, this is a disastrous plan. Firstly, you're absolutely

correct. Zelensky has rejected it. He said no. He insists, still. He insists, that the whole territory of Ukraine must be brought back under Ukrainian control. He says that the only way forward is his peace plan. His police plan requires a complete withdrawal of all Russian forces from every millimeter of territory that they have occupied, which belonged to pre-2014 Ukraine. That includes Crimea, all of Dombas, Donet City, Lugansk, Everywhere, Hearson, Zaparaja, the Russians must withdraw.

And only then can negotiations take place. He has recently said that diplomacy might achieve that outcome without negotiations. But it's clear again that he's talking about an immediate negotiation, an immediate outcome. He wants a peace conference or what he calls a peace summit. He expects all the countries of the global south to line up with Ukraine to demand this Russian withdrawal. And that's the only plan as far as he's concerned on the table. Any agreement, any freezing of the conflict that leaves the Russians in control of any millimeter of what he says is Ukrainian territory is unacceptable to him. And as we know, and we know this because the Financial Times in a previous article has also told us this, that we knew it already.

This plan, as it's set out, is also unacceptable to the Ukrainian hardliners, the far right militias, as the nationalist radical militias, as the Financial Times has. has referred them to. But, okay, the Ukrainians have rejected it. The Russians are going to reject this proposal as well. They're going to point out that which they have repeatedly pointed out. For them, the biggest sticking issue of all is Ukraine's membership of NATO. The attempt by the West to extend NATO to include Ukraine as well. And Putin has repeatedly said that this remains for Russia a red line and that for the Russians also all of the other demands that he made when the special military operation was ordered for Ukraine's demilitarization, for action to be taken, to rein in the hardliners,

in Ukraine for a reinstatement of Russian language and ultimately, I mean, the Russians are now talking about the Russian Orthodox Church as well. All of these remain fundamental conditions before the special military operation can end. So bringing Ukraine into NATO in the way that is being suggested by all of these people, by Stoltenberg and Johnson and other people like that. What it's going to do is the Russians will reject it. They will say, we are not in agreement with this at all. Our military operations in Ukraine therefore are going to continue. In fact, they're not only going to continue, they're going to be pushed even more forcefully, because from this point on, it's absolutely clear that if we stop,

then Ukraine becomes part of the NATO system. So we will continue with the operation in Ukraine. And then, of course, the West is left facing a choice. Do they implement Article 5? What does that even mean? Do they agree to defend Ukraine, as NATO membership implies? All of that would risk war with Russia. And of course, if they don't do that,

then the credibility of NATO as an alliance is shot at pieces. But this proposal is floating around. People are talking about it. One can't discount the possibility that it will be accepted and that either this administration or a future administration in the United States might choose to go forward with it, rather than acknowledge the reality that the war in Ukraine is lost. Yeah, this proposal should be scrapped.

It's a very dumb idea. For the good of NATO, to be honest, it should be scrapped because it's, as you said, if they actually go forward with this proposal, if they accept this, then NATO is done. Because Russia's going to call NATO's bluff. They're going to call their bluff. And they are not, and there are going to be many countries in NATO that are going to say no way are we going to go Article 5 with all of this against Russia. No way are they going to do it. It's not going to happen. It's going to be left to the United States. Does the United States want to

go to war with Russia? No. Not going to happen. Not the Biden administration. They're not going to do it and not a Trump or Harris administration. They're not going to do it. Russia is going to call their bluff. And it's going to look really bad for NATO. So this is a really bad idea. from Stoltenberg. And I agree with you. It's also going to further emboldened Russia. I mean, they're going to see stuff like this. They're going to say, okay, now we just got to go harder and faster in our objectives for

the special military operation because it's always about NATO. They just can't give it up. And this brings me to a very simple observation that I had when I was reading this article. It's not about Ukraine. It's not about victory for Ukraine. It's not about democracy for Ukraine. It has nothing to do with Ukraine. Everything now for the collective West is can NATO claim victory? Yes. That's it. NATO just wants to claim victory. We won. We defeated Russia because we got Ukraine into NATO, just like we got Finland into NATO, just like we got Sweden into NATO. You see, we are the winners because NATO continues to expand. Yeah, millions of people died. Yes, territory may have been temps. temporarily captured by Russia. Yes, we've been deindustrialized. Yes, we've been demilitarized.

It doesn't matter, though. NATO, one, we got our way in the end. You see, Sweden, Finland, and Ukraine in NATO, and soon Moldova will be in NATO. And we just continue to expand. And no one, no one can tell us no. No one can veto us. That's basically what this is all about. Absolutely. This is what Mark Ruther, who is the new NATO Secretary General, said when he went to Kiev. I'm sure, by the way, that he has discussed this plan with Stoltenberg and is backing it. I mean, I ought to say I'm convinced that the NATO bureaucracy collectively are supporting this plan. So you're absolutely right. NATO wants this.

And about them claiming victory at the end of it, if you go to that foreign affairs article, that is exactly what they're saying. They are saying this is the way to achieve victory over Russia. to get Ukraine, bundle Ukraine, what's left of it, into NATO, the 80% of it is still controlled by Kiev into Russia, into NATO. And then at that point, you present the Russians with this fait accompli as it's described, ultimatum as it would really be. And at that point, you would say when the Russians cave,

and the assumption is that the Russians would cave. I mean, Boris Johnson in the spectator article said as much. He said, you know, you tell the Russians, that's it, nothing more, no more expansion, no more empire, no more near abroad, none of that. This is the moment, you know, we've drawn our red line. You cannot cross it when the Russians cave. Then you're able to say you won. And for all of those reasons that you've just said, the Russians won't accept it from their point of view, this is an existential conflict. They've made that absolutely clear. They've made it

absolutely clear that they will not agree to this kind of proposal. There is no way this proposal is going to be acceptable to them. The Financial Times, the latest Financial Times article that you mentioned, said that the Russians would hate this idea. That's its words. But nonetheless, you go on, press forward, you try and bluff the Russians into defeat. Well, as I said by now, it's obvious. It ought to be obvious that every attempt that's made to bluff the Russians over this conflict in Ukraine ends with the bluff being called. Yeah, they never listened to Russia. For 20 years, Russia has been saying Ukraine does not get into NATO. for 20 years. And the West just refuses to listen. NATO refuses to listen. And it just makes,

it makes me wonder, is Ukraine and NATO, was it, is it really that important? Is it really that existential for the United States of America? Is it that existential for the United Kingdom, for France, for Germany, that Ukraine enter NATO? I mean, I think that is, the obvious answer is no. But for NATO, I guess it's that important because expansion for NATO is the name of the game. Yes. I mean, that's the only answer I can come up with to all of this, is that NATO must expand. Otherwise, it doesn't really have a reason for being. That is exactly correct.

This is exactly what it is all about. It is not existential for the United States. On the contrary, it would be potentially disastrous for the United States to be drawn into this sort of thing. And I think there are plenty of people in the United States who understand that. I think there are plenty of people in the Pentagon who understand what a disastrous idea this would be. I think that there are enough of them to ensure that this doesn't actually happen. I do the Germans also collectively now understand this too. I think Olauels is now clearly trying to find some kind of way out of this conflict.

He's still refusing to supply tourist missiles to Ukraine. I think the Germans also almost certainly would say no, and they would do so with any kind of government that appeared in Germany going forward. I think France would say no. I think Italy would definitely say no. They do not want to be drawn into some kind of conflict with Russia. The Russians are saying no, the Ukrainians are saying no, most of the European members of NATO would say no, the Pentagon probably would say no. This is a plan that has been

hatched within the NATO bureaucracy. It's backed by some people in the United States. We know who they are. It's backed by almost certainly the British government, which is on an obsession with Russia and with NATO. And it's terrified of the outcome where Russia, on the contrary, emerges as the victor in this war, which would show to the world that Britain is being relegated into a less important country. So the British probably backed this. One suspects that the Scandinavians and the Baltic states would probably back it as well. But anyway, I do think this is going to fly.

For all the reasons that we said, it is not existential. It is not important for the United States to keep expanding NATO in this way. It is essential, exactly as you said, for the NATO bureaucracy to keep expanding in this way. way because that's all NATO is at the moment. It is essentially a gigantic, very aggressive bureaucracy, which if it stops expanding, if it starts, if it comes up against its limits, if it starts if anything to go backwards, then it really risks falling apart because it is a

fossil in the modern world. And it's also terrified that if NATO expansion ends, that that will be a signal, that the only country that really matters, which is the United States, has lost interest in it. How connected, final question, how connected is NATO expansion with EU expansion? Because it seems like they're both on this obsession, this quest to expand as much as possible. I mean, the EU is not even about Europe anymore. It doesn't seem like it's confined to Europe. It reminds me of Eurovision in a way and that it just keeps on growing.

growing and growing, pretty soon it's going to invite Australia to the European Union, very much like Eurovision, the song contest. I mean, how connected do you see NATO expansion with EU expansion? Why can't they just stop? Why can't they just stop expanding and focus internally? I think they are two sides of the same coin. I think the days when, you know, there was NATO, which was one bureaucracy and the EU, which is a completely separate bureaucracy, or the European Economic Union, when the EEC, remember that? What existed until the 1980s was essentially a confederation of sovereign states

that worked together on certain trade and economic issues. I think those days are long since gone. I think we have to centralising and very powerful bureaucracies, both located in the St. Capital, Brussels. They meet each other all the time. They mix with each other all the time. They share their same perspectives and the same views. The current president of the European Commission,

Ursula von der Leyen, wanted to replace Stontenberg, Secretary General of NATO. I mean, she wanted to become Secretary General of NATO. She couldn't become Secretary General of NATO. Secretary General of NATO, that she decided that she'd stay as president of the European Commission. So I think they're two sides at the same point, and they talk quite straightforwardly and openly about the Euro-Atlantic community. So we can see the perspective there. It's quite clear.

They think of themselves as essentially part, different parts, of the same enterprise. And you're absolutely right. Why does the EU want to continue to expand? Well, there are many reasons. I mean, firstly, that helps to keep the appearance of momentum behind an EU project that more and more people across the EU are becoming less and less happy with. But there is another factor, and you see this, in the makeup of the existing European Commission,

which is that by expanding the EU constantly, by bringing in more and more countries, by ensuring that those countries that join the EU are furthered supporters of the EU project and of the EU centre, that strengthens the centre further at the expense of the sovereign states. So if you look at the current Commission and what I'm saying is uncontroversial, it's been widely commented and remarked upon, Ursula has appointed to all the top. jobs, all kinds of people who are deeply loyal to her, but also to the centralising mission of the commission. And where do they all come from? From the countries where the EU has most

recently expanded. So the Baltic states, Scandinavians, they are now disproportionately represented in the commission itself. And of course, it becomes then a certain. because these people who have become commissioners, because their countries recently joined the commission, not only the union, not only become supporters of the centralizing aspects of the EU project, but because they are the products themselves of EU, expansion. They support EU expansion.

They want to break up Russia. They want to take little bits of Russia probably and bring it into the EU. So, you know, the Republic of Yakutia or whatever it is, they want it into the EU and they want to press forward in that kind of way.

Yeah, she's appointed all of the Baltic state hardliners into the top top jobs. Yeah. Which is going to turn out very badly for the European Union. Anyway, all right. We will end the video there,

the durand.locos.com. We are on Rumble Odyssey, bitch, shoot, telegram, rock fin, and we are also on X and go to the Duran shop. Pick up some merch like the clothes that we are wearing in this video, the hoodie and the t-shirts that you see in this video. You will find a link to the Duran shop in the description box down below. Take care.