The Duran Podcast - Neocons demand Ukraine escalation. Trump signals talks with Putin

Episode Date: January 10, 2025

Neocons demand Ukraine escalation. Trump signals talks with Putin

All right, Alexander, let's talk about Trump's press conference from the other day where he talked about Greenland, he talked about the Panama Canal, and he talked about Canada, and he also talked about Ukraine. And he got a lot of questions from reporters about all of these four topics. And he said some interesting things, some provocative things, some shocking things. And there's a lot of people wondering what the plan is. What is Trump's plan? What is he trying to do? Is he serious? Is he trolling? Is he half, half and half on Ukraine? I think he probably took a step, in my opinion, or finally, finally took a step in the right direction with Ukraine in terms of messaging, because we have been saying this for a while now, that Trump needs to start sending

out the message that Ukraine is not his war. He'll try to get a ceasefire, but this is Biden's war. And you are getting from the neocons and the neolibs, they're trying to put it all on on Trump. An interesting article from chief neocon Kagan, basically saying if Ukraine collapses this is Trump's fault. I mean, that's pretty much the title of his article. If Ukraine collapses, it's all on Trump. So I think for Ukraine, he made an important statement with Ukraine. He also talked about NATO and Ukraine and NATO and Biden and all that stuff.

Anyway, where would you like to begin? We've got four areas, for countries, four regions, four disputes, I guess you can call them, that we can talk about, which one should we start off? I just, before we do that, I'm just going to say one thing, which is that we got a genuine press conference. We actually got a press conference. Now, we haven't really had that for a very long time. Donald Trump, in his first term, also did press conferences. We have hardly had any, no real press conference at all over the last four years for the reasons we all now know. But even in the Obama and Clinton, years, we didn't really get press conferences. This really was a throwback for me to the sort of press conferences I used to remember, which basically tailed off during the Nixon era. I mean, you know, the president actually is the president-elect comes along, actually asks answers, questions, give it interesting answers. And, you know, you get a sense, you know, he lifts,

He opens for you, part of his mind, and you see what he's doing. The media didn't know quite how to handle it. If you go back and look at the press conferences of former times, this is so completely different for them that they really don't have what to deal with this. Let's start with Ukraine, because this is the most urgent topic. There's the war going on at the moment. it is now turning catastrophically bad. Biden is throwing everything he can at it.

He's running down inventories, as far as I can see, at an incredible pace. He's floating loans to Ukraine, $20 billion loans supposedly paid off, paid back by interest on the frozen Russian assets, laundered notice through the World Bank, all of which tells you, by the way, the bad it's been laundered through the World Bank tells you how dodgy legally this is, that he's having to cover himself by getting the World Bank to actually provide the money. So all of this is going on. We've had, as we've discussed in recent program, a concerted attempt by the neocons and the hardliners and the Europeans.

various people in the United States as well, the deep state, all of those people, the pro-Ukraine coalition, to get Trump to veer off course, to get him to take ownership of the war in Ukraine, to tell him what you've got to do. We understand that, you know, you want peace in Ukraine, but then we all want peace in Ukraine, but you can't have it on Putin's terms. So what you must do is escalate. You must escalate sanctions. You must impose more sanctions on the Russians. You must increase arms supplies to the Ukrainians. You must actually escalate further in order to win a good peace. And the good piece is, of course, the same piece that we've always been offering and talking about Ukraine, NATO. The Russians may be left in temporary occupation. of certain eastern regions, but then we can rearm Ukraine, start it up all over again, put the Russians on the back foot and do all of those things. And they've been pushing this very hard. There's been a very, very sustained hard sell of this. The Ukrainians have been involved,

Zelensky has been involved, Macron has been involved, Stama has been involved, they've all been doing it. And we got a clear sign from Trump that he is not buying it. He's not prepared to go there. And this is really very important and very interesting. And it suggests to me that he's getting on top of this problem. He understands and he has said, and he's done exactly the right thing, what you said, this is Biden's war. It needn't have happened. There shouldn't have been a war in Ukraine at all.

Had he negotiated properly, Biden negotiated properly with Putin, it could have been avoided. And the whole issue of NATO is central to it. And Putin has said so repeatedly. And Biden wasn't listening. And that's why we are where we are. And Trump said, I get it. I get it. I get that Putin is concerned about NATO, that Russia is concerned about NATO.

They've been signaling this year after year after year. We hadn't been listening. I am listening. That's basically what he said. I am taking this extremely seriously. I do want negotiations. I do want talks. I'm going to give this thing six months. Not clear what he's going to do beyond those six months. But it's Biden's mistake. He wants to take NATO off the table. And importantly, he's not going to engage in any kind of initiative of. he's until obviously he's spoken to Zelensky, well, good luck with that. But he's also going to speak with Putin as well. And I mean, that is absolutely clear. He didn't talk about this exactly, but I'm anticipating. I'm sure, after listening to what Trump said, that a virtual summit meeting, or at least a long telephone call with Putin, and then perhaps an actual summit meeting with Putin, with Putin after the inauguration is now very much on the agenda. And importantly, and this is not

to be overlooked, he's called off the visit that Kellogg wanted to make to Europe and to Kiev, which would have been a mistake. I mean, Kellogg was wanting to rush to Kiev and to Europe before the inauguration. Trump has said, no, we've got to speak to Putin first. We've got to wait until the inauguration is done. And only then can we begin our diplomatic process and see whether anything can be saved from this wreckage. Because I think Trump also made it fairly clear that he's not confident any longer that this can be done.

He used the word hope. I hope that we can get some kind of deal within six months. He didn't say that there would definitely be one. He's shown that he understands this. He's putting the blame, attaching the blame where it belongs on the Biden administration. And he's taking a realistic approach to this whole problem. So in that very important respect, I think we saw Trump at his best in this press conference. And he's making, he's now definitely making the right cause.

That was my take. With Ukraine, yeah, I agree with you. We'll get to the other regions, the other topics as well, which is stirring up a lot of controversy. But let's just stay with Ukraine for a little bit longer. I believe that Kellogg canceling the trip may be due to the fact that Kellogg was rushing off with a plan that now the Trump administration realizes is completely unrealistic. Is that a correct assessment?

Absolutely. So they're going to rethink. They will probably rethink after speaking with Putin. After speaking with Kiev, with Putin, whoever they're going to speak with, they're going to rethink the initial negotiation, the opening negotiations as far as what they present as a counter to Russia. Is that correct, yeah? That's absolutely correct. Could I make a point which we've made many times and many programs and needs to be made again?

What Kellogg proposed in April 24 was proposed by Kellogg. It has never been publicly adopted by Trump himself. It is not his policy. He doesn't own any part of the ideas that Kebhock set out in that article. Kellogg has refloated them many, many, many times. But the Russians had made it absolutely clear that all of these ideas that were circulating then, postponing NATO entry for 15, 20 years, getting peacekeepers from Europe sent to Ukraine. None of that, as far as the Russians are concerned, will fly.

So what the Trump people don't want is a situation where there's a premature negotiation. based on a completely forced premise, which leads the Russians to slam the door shut and causes the negotiations to fall apart before they've even properly begun. So I think they're taking the absolutely correct strategy by pulling back, talking to the Russians first, getting a meeting between Trump and Putin first, and seeing whether this thing could be taken forward in a more realistic way. So absolutely, as I said, they're making the right calls and the fact that they've called Kellogg back was absolutely the correct decision. The neocons and the neolibs, people like Kagan, people like Blinken, they want the war to the collapse of Ukraine. They wanted to be blamed

on Trump, fully blamed on Trump. The Europeans, their greatest fear, is that Trump is going to speak with Putin without the Europeans being there. That's what they fear the most. And Macron said as much in a speech the other day. He pretty much said that Trump and France and the European Union need to bring Putin

in to the negotiating table. He made it very clear that Trump and the European Union, we need to get Russia to negotiate, where I believe Trump's thinking is he's going to speak to Putin directly. He doesn't really need the Europeans. And this is what scares the Europeans the most is a conversation between Russia and the United States without them there to sabotage. Yes, absolutely. you're absolutely right, but let's just take a step back and note what an incredibly entitled, an arrogant thing from the Europeans, that is. What they're basically saying is that the United States, the world's most powerful country, cannot conduct negotiations or hold discussions with Russia one of the world's other most powerful countries without them being involved. In other words,

They have a veto, in effect. They should have some kind of a veto over the discussions between the Americans and the Russians. Now, that is absolutely ludicrous. I mean, that is outrageous, actually. No American who has a genuine interest in conducting the foreign policy of the United States, according to American interests, should accept that. By definition, if the Americans want to speak to the Russians, That is their business.

It's the Germans want to speak with the Russian. That is their business. The same with the French, the same with the Italians, the same with everybody else. But Macron coming along and saying, you know, we can't have any kind of negotiations, any sort of talk without us, we have to have some kind of negotiated position. What has the single united negotiated position of the collective West delivered? when we're talking about Ukraine. It's delivered a war which the collective West is losing. So absolutely, Trump needs to ignore that. He needs to go straightforward, speak to Putin,

see what can be done. He was not party to any of the original decisions that have led to this disaster. The Russians have made it quite clear that they're willing to talk to him. there is no reason why he shouldn't talk to Putin. That is the first thing. The second is, about Macron and about the Europeans, what they want to do is to recommit the United States to the war in Ukraine. They want to use Ukraine to keep the United States in Europe.

We have discussed this many times. They would rather want a defeat of Ukraine, a military defeat of Ukraine, which led to a major crisis in Europe, a military crisis in Europe, which obliged the United States to remain in Europe than a negotiated settlement, a general settlement of the situation in Europe, which allowed the Americans to start drawing their forces down. That is the European priority. That is what Macron himself, is about, even if he sometimes comes up with fairy tale ideas about setting up European armies and that kind of thing, ultimately the Europeans know that without the American, they are nowhere

militarily speaking and geopolitically speaking. So what they're trying to do is to keep the Americans in. And that is why they are so nervous when the Russians and the Americans talk direct. to each other. This isn't the first time this has happened. I can remember during the early previous period of Daytonaunt in the late 1960s and early 1970s, on a much more moderate scale, some of the same concerns were being expressed in Western Europe then, that the Americans and the Russians were sorted all out between themselves and the Europeans would be left out in the cold and left basically to deal with the Russians by themselves. The Cold War is done.

We don't any longer have that kind of ideological conflict that we had at that time. The United States is in a completely different position. It meets, in my opinion, a stable, peaceful, negotiated situation in Europe, which only talks with the Russians can be. produce. So it should not be diverted from pursuing that by what the Europeans want, which, as I said, is not ultimately in American interests. Yeah. We've been saying it for a while now. Don't get bogged down in Ukraine if you're the Trump administration. Don't get sucked into a long negotiating process. If it works out, it works out. If it doesn't work out, Trump needs to be prepared. His administration

needs to be prepared to walk away. And they need to get their messaging straightened out so they can explain why they're walking away, why they're making the decisions that they're making. Messaging is very important because the other side, they're going to be hitting the Trump administration very hard with their messaging, trying to say, you're at fault for the collapse of Ukraine

and they're going to have most of the media behind them. Absolutely. Just to finish on this, the thing always to remember about Max Macron, Kagan, Stama, all of them, is that what they are recommending with respect to Ukraine is the same strategy that has already failed. It's the strategy that the West has been pursuing ever since the 2014 crisis, which is to go on giving unlimited amount of support to Ukraine, writing endless checks, giving endless weapons,

doing all of those things, escalating constantly, always saying. that you're doing it in order to force the Russians to negotiations and look where it's brought us. There's no sense. There is absolutely no rational sense in going on with that strategy when it has so completely, comprehensively and thoroughly failed. Well, yeah, I agree with you. There's no rational sense, but here's a comment which where here's a thought that I have and maybe you can comment on this. For the European, it's not about rationality anymore, is it? No.

If you're the political elite, the globalist kleptocrats in Europe, for four years, you were in it together with Biden, right? You all went in on this together to destroy Russia. You know, we're a team. We're united. We're allies. So together we're going to bring down Russia. No one's going to talk to anybody.

Everyone was on the same page. everyone was on the same page. No one talks to Putin. We're going to say the same exact stuff, as long as it takes. We're going to give weapons whenever we're told to give weapons. And everyone agreed to this strategy to escalate to the max, even if it hurt European countries, even if it meant pipelines would be bombed and destroyed. No one was going to move away from the narrative.

Right? and they all agreed on this. And in comes, Biden goes, and in comes Trump. And Trump says, well, we're really not in this together. As the United States, we can walk away from this if we want. And this must be terrifying for the Europeans because, you know, they were thinking that, you know, we're all one united team. And we're going to take on Russia.

And we're going to bring down Russia together. we can bring down Russia. And that's what they thought was going to happen. You summed it up perfectly. I mean, it has what the Europeans have wanted possesses its own mad logic. But it is not rational. But the drama is logical for them, but it is not rational for anywhere else. It's not rational for people in Germany.

Exactly. It's not rational for people in France or Britain or anywhere else. or indeed Ukraine. Can I just say, I mean, what you do, your words, take me back to the Munich Security Conference in February 2022. And I remember watching them all there. And they were intoxicated. They were absolutely, you know, they were, I mean, they were so enthusiastic and so happy.

I mean, you could see it. They were in a kind of state of dizzy euphoria because finally they thought they had an administration that thought as they did, an administration in Washington, they'd finally seen the back of Trump, they had the administration in Washington. He was, and they were going to fix this problem of Russia for them once and for all. There was going to be the war in Ukraine. There were going to be these massive sanctions. Russia's economy would be crippled.

its GDP would collapse by 30% or 50% or whatever it was, Putin would fall and we'd be in that glorious situation that so many Europeans have hankered full, so many European leaders, I should stress, not European public, has hanked fall for so long. So they were absolutely in a state of exultation over this. Now they're coming down to earth and they're coming down to earth and They don't like it. I mean, it's horrifying for them. And you're absolutely about everything, everything the Trump is saying and doing is deeply alarming to the European elites, more so, I suspect, than their worst fears before the election.

Yeah. So the European elites, they would prefer, they're at this stage right now emotionally, where for them, chaos and drama is the way to keep the United States invested in Europe, in Ukraine. But it's really about Europe. I mean, it's not really about Ukraine. It's how do you, how do you keep the U.S.'s attention on us? Well, stability, that's not going to do it. Peace, that's not going to do it. The U.S. is just going to ignore us if we have these things. So the best way that we could keep the U.S. invested in us is to create more chaos and more drama.

Absolutely. And more escalation. Absolutely. That's exactly much. Yeah. It's almost like an abusive, it's like a relationship between two people. And it's the one person saying, you know, I'm just going to create more problems so that you can continue to pay attention to me. Absolutely.

This is exactly what it's all about. I mean, you know, there is even common truth, you know, that the Europeans are out to create threats against themselves. Because that's the only way they can keep the Americans. And they do want to keep the Americans in. And it's not just because they need the Americans to defend them against the Russians, which is militarily speaking true, but hardly real, because nobody seriously believes that the Russians have plans to occupy Berlin. I mean, it's just nonsense.

But because without the American, Europe loses its geostrategic relevance. I mean, it's exposed for what it is. a declining continent with broken economies that's going down. One final question on Ukraine and we'll move on. Trump during his statements on Ukraine, I think he said something very, very interesting. Actually, there's more about Russia. He said that he, and I'm paraphrasing what he said,

that Russia would have NATO on its doorstep and they would not like it, and I understand that. And I think there's a good segue into our next topic. of Greenland, Panama, Canal, Canada. In a way, it was Trump, in my opinion, acknowledging that Russia has a legitimate sphere of influence. When he said that, I understand that, I understand where Russia's coming from,

they don't want NATO on their doorstep. He said that. So your comments, and then I guess you can segue into the very controversial topics of Greenland and Panama Canal and Canada. Absolutely, the first thing to say is that this is revolutionary's comment, by the way, because the Western mantra for ever since I can remember is, you know, the Russians have nothing to fear about NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance.

If it is expanded everywhere and anywhere, well, that's no kind of possible threat to Russia. The Russians would be intensely relaxed about it. They should even welcome it. Trump is saying, well, no, that's not right. The Russians have good reason not to be happy about having NATO on their doorstep. And that, as I said, contradicts the entire orthodoxy, at least the narrative that has been spun. And by the way, which continues to deceive many people. I mean, it's astonishing fact that NATO starts all of these wars in all of these places. And you still come across people, they bet you regularly come across people. who tell you, what's the problem? Why do the Russians have this problem with NATO? It's only a defensive alliance, after all. Trump is saying, well, nonsense. I don't take that seriously. I understand exactly where the Russians are coming from. The Russians have their security concerns, their concerns about their immediate neighborhood. And so have we. That's where you're leading

it to, because that is exactly what he's saying. That's where the rest. of the press conference is taking us. And it's very, very interesting, by the way, and very important. All right. So let's discuss it. Greenland, Panama Canal, Canada. What do you think Trump's angle is here? Is this Trump's way of saying this is our sphere of influence? I mean, you know, obviously Canada's not going to be the 51st state of the United States. That's obvious. But he's trying to signal something. There's some trolling involved, but there's also signals that Trump is putting out there. Some people may say he's bullying. Some people may say he's imperialistic, expansionist. Maybe all of these things. Maybe he's trolling. Maybe he's being imperialistic. Maybe he's being expansionist.

Maybe he's being bullying. But there seems to be some sort of message or a method to this madness. of course, you're talking about resources, the Arctic, shipping lanes. That's the purpose of the Panama Canal is, of course, trade and shipping. Also the Chinese. He's worried about the Chinese presence there. At least that's the allegation that's being made. China has a presence in Panama. And then, of course, with Greenland, once again, you're talking about minerals, resources,

Arctic shipping lanes, and Trump Jr. even flying to Greenland, maybe to take the trolling to the next. to the next level. But with all of the madness, there's also a message. Absolutely. And I think rightly so, a lot of people that watch this are getting very frustrated and upset and alarmed with Trump's statement. But we've got to try to figure out what is he trying to get at.

Or is he trying to get at something? Or is this just him being crazy or is he trying to distract away from something else? I don't think so. No, I think he is talking about. about the US's sphere of influence. And I don't know what that's going to mean in a year or two or three. I don't know where he's going to take things from a negotiation diplomatic standpoint.

But before he's president, he's definitely signaling something with regards to what his foreign policy priorities are going to be. Absolutely. And I think that, first of all, this needs to be taken seriously. As you correctly say, there is a lot of drama And there is a lot of rhetoric here. And this is very typical of Trump. He likes to do this. He likes to make seemingly outrageous statements. Canada should join America. We should change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. We should take over the Panama Canal. We should be prepared to go to war with all of these places. We should be prepared to occupy Greenland. All of these kind of things. And of course, what they do is they shake everybody. And everybody sits up and listens. which in other respects, if he said it in a more measured way, probably what he's really thinking,

in a more measured way, no one would notice and nothing would happen by dramatizing it in this kind of way, by saying things that really, you know, many people do find shocking and outrageous, he actually moves forward with the agenda that he really has. And if you followed Trump as closely as we have done, you would know that this is what he does. It's almost instinctive with him. It's something that makes him very different from every other politician I can think of. I think you've put your finger on exactly the right point, spheres of influence. Now, what Trump has made absolutely clear is that he's not.

not any longer interested in the globalist neocon project. In fact, he not only isn't interested in it, he is deeply opposed to it. He thinks that what it has done is it has weakened the United States, is hollowed out the United States. It's meant that it's industrial and manufacturing strength and much of its technological strength has been run down. He's concerned about the effect that it had on latent American power, he's probably worried about the fact that China is able to produce ships in a week, which the United States takes five years to do, because that's Trump, and he does worry about these things. But he's also got his electoral constituencies in the various states, the working class voters who voted for him. He is, I think,

generally concerned about them. And I think he's also looking or looking at the future of the United States. And what he's saying to himself is, look, this project that people like Kagan and others committed us to are trying to exert power everywhere, influence everyone, change the world in all places. It's not, not only is it not working, we see China and Russia rising as great powers again. We see other potential great powers also appearing. Not only is it not working in its own terms, but it's inflicting enormous damage on the United States. So the time has come to reverse it and to start retrenching. And for the United States, whilst it continues to be a great power, to use that power, to secure it future by carving out a sphere of influence,

around its own territory, a sphere of influence which it will signal to the other great powers, you mustn't go there because this is where we are. Just as Ukraine is where Russia is, Greenland, Mexico, the Panama Canal is where we are. These are vital strategic assets. It provides us with resources, which we want to develop. We don't want other people coming along and developing these assets. We want to develop these assets. And we don't obviously want China and Russia establishing presences and bases in these places. If there's going to be any basis, they're so close to the American heartland that it is we who must have our bases there. So he wants to do that. He wants to establish his fear of influence. He wants

to return to tariff walls. He wants to create tariff walls around the United States. He is deeply committed about this, by the way. People are underestimating the emotional pull this has for Trump. And of course, this is not to be separated from all of the things who've just been talking about. He also wants to build literal walls around the United States to control unlawful. movement into the country. If you think of it in that way, it all starts to make a kind of sense. He wants to make the United States again in terms of its global position, a conventional great power, as opposed to the messianic project that the neocons imposed on it. It is in fact, in its own way, as revolutionary, as everything else that he has been saying about Ukraine.

And I think it could carry a lot of traction within the United States and could well be the way forward. You said retrench is the word that you used? Yeah. Instead of retreat. I think retrench. Could it be viewed as a retreat from globalism? Yes.

Without admitting defeat of the project for the New American Century, without admitting that that has failed, we're going to re-evaluate retrench instead of saying we're retreating from the PNAC model? Yeah, it is. Well, first of all, it is a retreat from that. But he's not going to use that word, obviously. I mean, he's not going to use that one. But bear in mind, he's retreating from a model of foreign policy that is, to put it

mildly unconventional and has been a disastrous failure, which he can see. So he says, you know, let's start behaving like a proper great power. Let's not start sending, you know, our young people to fight in all the blood and treasure to fight in places like, you know, far away from us, like, well, Cameroons or Galapagos Islands or wherever. Let's concentrate on those places that are really important to us. And that's what he's signaling with all of these statements. Now, this, by the way, just to say, is going to be deeply alarming to the Europeans. I mean, it's going to be, it's going to shock the Kagan's. To the near-cons. The neocons are going to be absolutely up in arms about this. They're going to be completely horrified. And they will be as outraged as

It's possible to be. But in fact, they're going to see this as almost as blasphemy. I mean, one of the things they always say is that the United States is not just a country. It is an idea, something I've always found extremely disturbing. Donald Trump is saying, no, it's not an idea. It's a country. That's what he's telling them. So the neocons are going to be shocked.

But the Europeans are also going to be shopped because look where the boundaries of this sphere of influence are going to be. They're going to be places that are relevant for the, as Trump would say, for the welfare and security of the American heartland. Europe is not part of it. So, the Europeans are being left out. And this is going to be as frightening to them as anything else that Trump is going to do. And of course, I mean, you know, we have the Danes now absolutely frothing about this. I mean, I should say that, you know, there's an independence movement in Greenland. It's sort of if people in Greenland are entirely happy to be part of Denmark.

Whether that means that they want to be part of the USA, I mean, I don't know. And I'm not going to try and guess because I generally, truly don't know. But there is an independence movement in Greenland. So this does, you know, touch a sore nerve. It probably means, I mean, if the US back the Greenland independence movement, however strong or weak it is, and again, I want to stress, I know nothing about it, that really increases hugely the prospect of Denmark losing Greenland, which will be a blow to them. But, you know, they've brought it on themselves. They gave away all their weapons to Ukraine.

They've got no army left. They've been absolute zealous supporters of the Neocon project in Europe. You can see why now. A hantina, they're going to be left out in the cold. But forget about Denmark. All of the others are going to be left out in the cold as well. Germany, France, all of them. Trump is saying to them is, look, we're going to focus on ourselves. From now on, it's up to you. What you should do is increase your defense spending to 5% of GDP and look after your own security. It's, again, for the Europeans, the most frightening thing that they could possibly hear. Now, that's what worries me is that the Europeans will do whatever they have to do, even start wars, destroy themselves in order to get the attention of the United States.

States. That's what I was saying. It's almost like it's an abusive, it's a relationship that's that relies on chaos and drama in order to keep it going. But what you said, the spheres of influence, does that include the respect for the spheres of influence? Does that include Taiwan, China? Well, we're so interesting because, again, he was, people baited him about Taiwan. And it was very interesting because he gave me the very clear impression. that he really isn't keen of getting to war with China over Taiwan. And he isn't keen on getting into a war with Iran either.

So yes, he does seem to understand that if the United States is going to pursue spheres of influence as a great power, other great powers will do the same. Now, go on. No, I was going to ask you who, okay, who has a sphere of influence in the Middle East? You have Russia, you have China, you have India is emerging to be a country that's going to say, well, you know, we have a sphere of influence as well.

Obviously, the United States, Middle East, Africa? This is, of course, if we go back to the 19th century, when great powers did try to stake out spheres of influence, this is where it requires very effective diplomatic management. management, because spheres of influence can collide with each other. There can be disputes between great powers as to who controls what, where the spheres of influence are. So unless it is managed well, then this could create a whole set of different crises as well.

Bear in mind that the First World War, the reason the First World War began was because there was a conflict between Austria and Russia. But this is the ultimate cause, a conflict between Austria and Russia, the Habsburgs and the Russians, about spheres of influence in the Balkans. So, you know, if you don't manage it well. But that's Trump would say a problem for the future. And if you're going to manage spheres of influence successfully, as, say, Bismarck, and Metternich and Gorchikov and all of those people in the 19th century once did, then what that means

is that you have to have constant dialogue and diplomacy between the great powers, a concert, as it was called, of the great powers, a concert of Europe when all the great powers were European, but now it would be a global concert, the Americans, the Russians, the Chinese, probably the Indians eventually, who knows which others all involved in. discussing and agreeing spheres of influence with each other. And there will be a global hierarchy of states. If this model is imposed, there will be some states that are not part of, you know, the collection of great powers.

Bear in mind that legally there already is. I mean, there are the permanent members of the Security Council, which are privileged over other countries. G7. A complete G7, exactly. This isn't completely new thing. G20 bricks. Exactly. This isn't it completely new thing. Well, we will have a situation, as I said, with some great powers, meet and decide. And it's not always going to be very, it can sometimes be very ugly going to decide the fate of smaller countries. That is what regularly happened in Europe in the 19th and early 20th century. And if Trump's model is ever established, we could.

find ourselves heading of that direction again. But that, I think, is, you know, that's for the future. We're still at the moment in a situation where the United States is still tied to the globalist NIRCON project for a new American century model. He has to end that and then set up. He's going to move to that. But that's one reason why he has to talk to the Russians and he has to talk to the Chinese and he has to talk to others.

And Europe obviously is going to be a key problem. You're absolutely right. The Europeans are going to try and create as much trouble as they can and as much chaos as they can in order to keep the Americans in. But the Middle East, very, very difficult to say, who should have a sphere of influence in the Middle East? Who, in their senses, would want to have a sphere of influence of the Middle East? Just saying.

But anyway, you know, there is the Middle East, there's Africa, there's all sorts of other places. I mean, this is going to be, if this comes about, this is going to be the diplomacy of the future, it's what we're going to be spending on time discussing on the diram. It's quite likely we will be seeing all of that. But, I mean, if it happens. But for the moment at least, as I said, he's got to wrap up the old model in order. to create. Well, I mean, yeah, this is a huge topic.

And this is going to be a long video, by the way. But I can tell you two countries that are looking at a sphere of influence in the Middle East and that are actually maybe heading towards a collision course, Israel and Turkey. Absolutely. Absolutely. Spheres of influence. And they're already talking about colliding. Even though they were cooperating in Syria.

Yes. Now it looks like the romance is over. And now they're fighting. for power in the region. So there are two countries right there. And of course, you can put Iran in there and Saudi Arabia. Yeah. Yes. And things get very complicated. Yes. Yeah. Let's, what was I going to say? What about a country like, my final question, what about a country like Venezuela, which finds itself now within, I believe in your video, you called it Fortress America. Let's say now Venezuela, all of a sudden, aligned with China, aligned with Russia, trying to get it to Bricks.

Brazil is a member of Bricks. What about these countries that are now finding themselves possibly within Trump's Fortress America? And the final question, we'll wrap up this long video. Yeah. What would you say Canada, Denmark, and Panama need to do going forward to deal with this? Well, let's talk about places like Venezuela, Cuba. Cuba.

Yeah, all of these places. Caribbean, Cuba, Brazil. Brazil. I mean, Argentina's probably very happy about this if you're Malay. If you're Malay, you're probably saying this is great. But if you're Maduro, Brazil, Cuba, you're probably getting a bit worried. Or trying to figure out what do you do now. Now, I mean, Trump has made it all many, very clear many, many times that he really disliked.

the governments in Venezuela and Cuba, I think that probably when it comes to Cuba, which is, you know, it's not a massively stable place and it's got massive economic problems, but it does have long now, what are now very well established historic ties with the Russians and probably the Chinese eventually as well, I think what can pass perhaps happen is that a deal can be done. This is exactly the kind of dealing that great powers used to do with each other. A deal can be done with, say, the Russians, maybe the Chinese too, very much along the lines of what JFK and Khrushchev agreed with each other, just leave Cuba as it is. Russians and the Chinese can develop Cuba as they please economically, but they're on no military

basis then, which is basically the situation we have now. The Russians have no military basis in Cuba. They withdrew their last ones in the era, in the early days of Putin's presidency, by the way. So Russians, no military presence in Cuba, but don't upturn a very longstanding relationship, which is not really threatening or dangerous to the US. That could be one possible solution. Now, Venezuela is a completely different thing because I think the Trump and the people around him absolutely do consider that Venezuela belongs

in the American sphere of influence. Many people in Venezuela, many people across Latin America perhaps would strongly disagree with that. But that probably is Trump's major. But a strong feeling. I think he spills a lot more strongly about Venezuela than he does about Cuba, for example. I have to say this, and again, maybe people are not going to like this. I don't think the Russians or the Chinese are as emotionally invested in Venezuela as they are in Cuba.

And we are going to move into a world of spheres of influence. I don't think that the Russians or the Chinese are going to work especially hard to keep Venezuela out of America's sphere of influence. Now, you mentioned Brazil. Brazil is also potentially one day a great power. And if Brazil becomes a great power, it will want a sphere of influence as well, presumably, according to. into this model, where would that logically be? It would be in South America. The country with which the US might have contentions over with respect to places like Venezuela or Colombia or wherever could conceivably in the future be Brazil, because the Brazilians might say, look, this is our

neighborhood, you stay out. Now, notice that for the moment, Trump is drawing a circle around the United States, and he's not going any further south than the Panama Canal. So, again, it may be, I mean, I'm not to say that he has, but it may be that he has thought this through, and maybe he understands that, you know, he doesn't really want to get too deeply involved in the politics of America, South America, south of the canal. Mexico included it. Because Mexico is hitting back.

Yeah, Mexico's hitting back. And that's going to be down with that. It's hitting back at Trump. Absolutely. That's going to be very difficult. And again, maybe Mexico's a more complicated and intractable country than Trump understands. And of course, Mexico has long history with the U.S.

You know, they might have all kinds of issues. There's even a statement that the Mexicans still make, which was once said by one of their previous presidents, Porfirio Diaz, poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the USA. So the Mexicans have issues with, you know, historic issues with the Americans. It might not be straightforward. But clearly, Trump is signaling that, as far as he's concerned, Mexico should be within the American sphere of influence. He's not happy about the fact that the Chinese are very heavily present. In Mexico, he thinks that a lot of Mexican exports are really Chinese exports, which are just producing things for China and exporting them into the U.S. and getting round his tariff rules.

So he doesn't want that. So there's going to be a lot of pressure. Now, you asked me what all of these countries should. To wrap up the video, there's a long video, but this is a very interesting topic. What they need? Yeah, what should these countries? do. The first thing to do is don't panic. That's the first lesson. Don't panic. Talk to Trump and talk to the Americans, even if we do drift into spheres of influence. If you're a big country

and Canada and Mexico are both big countries, they're strong countries, potentially very strong countries. I mean, Canada has been, in my opinion, appallingly governed for the last, well, I don't want to say, but we all know my feelings about Trudeau and things of that kind. But potentially, Canada is a very, very strong country. The thing to understand about spheres of influence is that they don't take away agency from countries that fall within them. They can still bargain with the dominant partner. Finland did so, for example, very successfully with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Mexico and Canada, relative to the United States, would be in a stronger, much stronger position than Finland was with the Soviet Union. So they can bargain

and they can bargain successfully. And if they do it well, they might even benefit from it. They gain access to the American market, they gain American investment, they become more effectively integrated into a larger economic space. It might, if it's done intelligently, be good for them. That's Mexico, that's Canada, Panama is a completely different situation. I don't know what can be done there, but I mean, the Panamanians can perhaps come to some kind of a deal about management of the canal. They might be able to give the Americans some kind of rights over the canal without giving up sovereignty. Again, these kind of things can be done. The important thing is, as I said, to keep talking to the Americans as to what Denmark can do. The answer is Denmark can do very little, because it's part of the European world. It's really in a completely different

position from these others. All right. Let's end the video there. I'm going to say Denmark should ready itself for the fact that at some point anyway, it is going to lose green. It's an anomaly that it retains control of greening. I think Denmark has already admitted, has already accepted the fact that that Greenland can be independent.

I mean, they said that Greenland can have if they want a referendum and can be independent. They say something along those lines. So, I mean, they're already understanding that they don't have any leverage on Greenland or anything that Trump is saying with regards to Greenland. Now, whether Greenland has a referendum and decides to become completely independent and sovereign, that's the decision for the people of Greenland to make. Exactly. All right.

The durand.com, we are on Rambalida, cpitch, Telegran, Rockfinan. And X and go to the Duran Shop, pick up some merch like what we are wearing in this video. Today, the link to the Duran Shop is in the description box down below. Take care.