The Duran Podcast - Nuland resigns. China hawks take over

Episode Date: March 10, 2024

Nuland resigns. China hawks take over

All right, Alexander, let's talk about the resignation of Victoria Newland. It's been a couple of days since we got the news that she resigned. You've done videos on her resignation on your channel. I've done a video on her resignation on my channel. And we've had about three, four days to just kind of think about what this means for the State Department, the U.S. State Department, Russia and of course Project Ukraine, which she effectively birthed. I mean, this is her child. Project Ukraine is her creation for the most part. What are your thoughts on Newland's resignation? I've increasingly come round to the view that this was a resignation that was insisted upon

by powerful people within the United States, within the government, United States. And the way it was, you know, suddenly announced was very strange. I mean, you know, this thing came completely out of the blue. Usually when somebody's retiring, you know, we've given some advance notice that, you know, and why would she do it just now in this, you know, sudden way? Why not say, you know, that she's told Lincoln that she intends to leave office, leave the State Department, say at the end of the year, or at the end of the presidential,

the current presidential term, and that's suddenly coming along, telling Lincoln, I'm going to leave it once. Now, there may be, you know, there may be explanations. It may be that there's something personal that's happened, that she's ill or something of that kind. but go to the statement that Blinken published thanking her, you know,

announcing her resignation. I want to talk about this because, first of all, it refers to the fact that she's resigned, then it very carefully says in the title that she's retired, which basically forecloses the possibility that she's going to come back to the State Department. basically they say she's retired. Then it talks about, you know, her fierce passion, her outspokenness, that she always speaks her mind,

that she uses the full toolkit of American diplomacy, and that she always has your back. Now, if you know as much about Newland as we know about Newland, we would, I mean, I feel that those are very double-edged compliments. And then lastly, something I only really noticed last night, that nowhere in that statement is she straightforwardly thanked for her service or extended best wishes for her retirement. Now, perhaps that isn't something that's done in the United States, but it did suggest to me a certain coolness, behind all the all the all the nice words so i think what's basically happened is that people in the united

states powerful people in the united states in the pentagon in the state department they can see that the writing is on the wall with project ukraine they can see that the signs that ukraine is lost the war isn't going to be turned around there's problems mounting in ukraine all the time is illusiony by the way remember him the uh jenely General, who Zelensky sacked a short time ago, he seems to have seen the writing on the wall because he's accepted the post of ambassador to the UK after all. So he's now going to London, which, you know, but anyway, people in the White House, well, not White House, maybe in the government are looking at the situation. They say Ukraine's lost. They're angry

with Newland for having led them into this thing. And I suspect they're probably also very angry with what's coming out of Europe at the moment. You know, missile strikes deep inside Russia, Macron talking about sending NATO troops to Ukraine. And of course, there's some people in the United States who support that sort of thing. But there must be others, especially in the Pentagon, who say, you know, my God, these Europeans,

they want to get us involved in Ukraine. They want to start all of this trouble there. if they themselves get into serious trouble, they will do what they always do. They'll hide behind the United States and ask us to come to their rescue. We don't want to be involved in any of that. We have other more important things to worry about,

specifically China in the Pacific. The people who've taken over from Newland, Kurt Campbell and John Bass, are notable China Hawksbush. the way. And they're saying, you know, enough's enough. Newland is probably behind all of this. The idea of launching the missile strikes into Russia does look like it was her idea. So they said, enough's enough. And at some point, they must have complained to Blinken and presumably to Biden himself and said, look, the type of scum, we can't tolerate this anymore. She's got to leave. And bear

in mind that these same people appeared to have successfully blocked about a month ago her attempt to be appointed Deputy Secretary of State. She held that role as an active role, acting role, for seven months, but when the moment came, she was passed over and it went to Kurt Campbell instead. Yeah, I was going to ask you that just very quickly to clarify the position now. So Blinkins on the top, Newland was the acting deputy. She was in the number two position, but as an acting role. She was previously the number three position, but now that position, the number three position, that's going to be given to John Bass. That's right.

Who was the ambassador in Afghanistan. He was overseeing Afghanistan during the Afghanistan debacle. And now the number two position is going to be officially. given to Campbell. That's right. Not as acting, but he's the official number two. Absolutely. Absolutely. And, you know, we've all pointed to an acting role. You usually have expectations that you'll be given the permanent job. So Newland probably hoped that she would become number two of the State Department. It seems that lots of people in Washington

were strongly opposed to that, and she wasn't able to get it. So you can see, it looks to me that she's been squeezed out and being a sophisticated person and being, I think, fully aware that if she tried to stand her ground, her position within the State Department would become increasingly isolated and intolerable and that if she tried to fight on, there was a real risk that she might be sacked, which she wouldn't want. she decided to bow to the pressure and resign. And then, of course, the moment she designed,

this is the very interesting thing, because the statement says that she resigned. She told Blinken that she was going to resign, and then the statement says she's retired, which, as I said, forecloses the option of her coming back. Yeah, this is as close as you can possibly get in the government, in the U.S. government to actually seeing someone being fired for incompetence and for messing up. This is as close as I think we've ever seen something like this happen in the collective Western,

in the U.S. government. But I want to get to that in a second. First, let me ask you about Campbell and Bass. This is a clear sign that the permanent state, because I think when you talk about the state, department, you do have to talk about the permanent state and not so much the Biden White House and Trump White House or the Obama White House. I mean, in the State Department, you have entrenched a permanent state. This is a clear indication that the permanent state in the State Department is going to be shifting towards China. Correct. That's exactly what it is. And the Pentagon as well.

So we have General Brown as chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He is obviously, he's always, obviously permanent state, notice that he's showing none of the enthusiasm for project Ukraine that Mark Millie did. And he's clearly focused on China. It's well known that he is. And now we're seeing more and more people in the State Department do the same. And this tells us that, you know, like a giant super tanker, gradually turning around the US is turning. I think that what has crystallized everything was Ukraine's defeat in the summer offensive. I think from that moment on, people like Newland have been on the back foot and they've been slowly losing ground.

And as you rightly say, they were told finally, enough's enough. You've got to go. All right. Let me get to that. We've been saying on this channel, on your channel, my channel, but I think you're, I think you broke this news first. And it wasn't really news. It was more of a, of a rumor for, for lack of a better word, that, uh, that there was some talk about how the counteroffensive, the summer counteroffensive was, was managed by Newland. I mean, she was overseeing all the details of the counteroffensive. A lot of people find that hard to believe because they, they, they push back on, on our reporting and they say, well, the military would never, allow Newland to micromanage or oversee this type of operation. But knowing Newland and knowing how

things were unfolding in Project Ukraine and Mark Milley and some of the generals involved, I think absolutely they would allow Newland to oversee the summer counteroffensive, or at least to have some management input over the summer counteroffensive. But anyway, so, so, We were talking about how she was managing the summer counteroffensive. It was a complete failure. Then you had Avdefka. And then you have this audio leak of the Taurus missiles hitting the Kerch Bridge. Now, Newland has always been obsessed with Crimea, fixated, completely obsessed with Crimea.

When I first reported on my channel about Newland's resignation, my mind went to Newland basically understanding or the people around her understanding that, okay, it's over. Your one big surprise left was something towards Crimea, whatever that was. And I reported that that was most likely with Germany some sort of hit on the Kerch Bridge. that's now been kind of foiled, or at least it appears that that's off the table now given the fact that we have the audio leak. And I just thought, you know, Newland probably said there's nothing else left.

The people around her probably said, okay, done, that's it. We've tried everything. And even your last surprise has now been leaked and it's out there. So it's time to go. Is that basically how all of this unfolded, for her to finally understand that it's over and for everyone around her to understand

it's over. You've put out all your ideas and all your strategies and there's nothing else left. There's nothing else left. Exactly. And I think that to some extent she was probably relieved to go, by the way, just to say, I mean, I don't want to dwell on this, but people have noticed that there's been over the last year changing her appearance,

to put it mildly. And again, as somebody who's been involved in stressful situations, I can tell you that it does affect your appearance. So I think that she's been having an increasingly hard time. And she's always like to work in the shadows. Correct? I mean, she's never been a public. She's not like Bolton who likes to, you know, make interviews and always be in public. Exactly.

She's very much someone who's more comfortable behind the scenes. Exactly. So she's coming under increasing criticism. She knows that the permanent bureaucracy, powerful people within the permanent bureaucracy, are unhappy. She's aware that there are criticisms of her handling of the summer offensive. And, you know, bear in mind, we did a program, a live stream with Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaffer. And to a great extent, he confirmed that, you know, that it was the political leaders who were behind the counteroffensive, the summer counteroffensive. And, you know, I know that he actually said it was Victoria Newland.

But when we're talking about the politicians being involved, inevitably, she's not a politician exactly, but inevitably given her role, it comes back to her. And I did see those rumors that people in Washington were calling it Vicki Newland's offensive. Just saying all of that. So, you know, it makes a lot of sense to me. So the offensive took place. It failed. Ukraine is now clearly losing the war. There's no way it can be turned around.

Everybody can see it. She can ultimately see it herself. She is aware of all the opposition that's building up around her. She sees that she's passed over for the post of Deputy Secretary of State, which she was given reason to think that she would be given. and she's also aware that her critics, people perhaps like General Brown, you know, who's been very quiet about Ukraine and perhaps Kurt Campbell within the State Department, the permanent state, as you say, that they are becoming stronger and are gaining the ascendancy.

And that was probably why when it came to it, when the pressures became too strong, she finally said to herself, enough's enough for me, and went to Blinkin, who was clearly caught by surprise, by the way. The statement that he issued also hints at this, that she came to Blinken and said, look, enough's enough. I can't take any more of this. I'm going. So you can see how it worked out. If you've been involved in bureaucratic battles, this is quite often. and how they turn out that, you know, the people want you out, the pressure builds, what you've been trying to do isn't working, you've been blamed and criticised. You're probably, by the way, yourself the target of the usual bureaucratic games,

which, of course, Newland herself has been very adept at. You're not invited to meetings. You're not getting the briefing papers. you know you're you find the people when you meet with them are more guarded with the way they speak all that kind of thing which happens and finally she said enough's enough i'm going yeah do you think that the because timing to me is is very interesting for for the announcement of her of her resignation for her going do you think that the audio leak from germany played a role in in the timing of her departure.

In other words, was that the final straw that everyone said, okay, enough? And if that's the case, well, what does that tell you about how, about this leak? It really does show that the leak that came out of Germany was significant. I mean, this was a big deal. And perhaps it was, it was. that leak of hidden Crimea, where the permanent state finally found the excuse or the courage to push her out. And also maybe the Pentagon allowed all of this to develop, or some people in the Pentagon allowed this to develop, allowed Victoria Newland to go about her, her mischievous plans and plots

to just give her a little bit of free reign to hang herself because they knew that, okay, counteroffensive is not going to work. This tourist missile stuff is nuts, but just let her go ahead with these ideas. And eventually it'll open her up to criticism and the departure. I'm not saying all the people in the Pentagon. I'm saying there might have been some of the generals, like the real generals or the real people in the Pentagon,

God's saying, you know, fine, do it your way, Victoria, but they understood that, you know, it's all going to fail and she'll be pushed out. And then they can focus on China. Yeah. Well, can I say again, as a grizzled veteran of bureaucratic battles, and I, you know, I bear the scars of many of them, the tactic of what we call in Britain, giving your opponent enough rope so they can hang themselves. In other words, letting them do what they want to do, knowing that it's going to fail and put them in a bad position where you could finally move against them. That is a classic tactic in bureaucratic wars. It's been done, I've seen it done many times. and in a political setup, a sophisticated, a bureaucratic setup,

as sophisticated and as ruthless as the one in Washington, I am sure that this thing goes on and it goes on all the time. And it's entirely possible that the people of the permanent state who wanted to get rid of Newland used that tactic against her. They said, you're right, you know, Toria, apparently that's what she's called to her face. she doesn't like being called Vicky, so I understand. Anyway, Toria, you know, your offensive failed.

This isn't working out. But, you know, if you think you could turn things around in some way, you know, you've got a few more months. We'll let you be Deputy Secretary of State and that she went around Europe and she said, you know, let's come up with this great plan. We'll build up the fortified lines and we'll launch the long-range missiles. And then she went to Germany and she went to Britain

and all of these places. And by the way, we know that. We know that she was involved in all of that. And when she went to Kiev a few weeks ago, she gave this, you know, public. It was a kind of press conference in which she said that the Russians should expect some nice surprises.

And it was fairly clear that what she was talking about was, you know, long-range missile strikes on targets like the Kirchbridge. and inside Russia itself. So, you know, this isn't, I think, not only is it not far-fetched, we have a lot of actual information which corroborates it

and then, you know, shows it shows that it's to a great extent true. And then, of course, right into the middle of all of this, we get this recording of the German generals talking about how deeply involved the British are, how deeply involved the Germans themselves are becoming, about attacks on the Kerch Bridge, about attacks in Rostov and Krasnodar region.

And this is exactly what her enemies might have wanted. They'd have said, look, this is incredibly dangerous what you're doing. I will tell you straight away, regardless even if none of this plotting occurred, the effect in the Pentagon of a recording like this being published by the Russians in that way would have made many people very alarmed and very angry. I mean, the plotting was bad enough in itself, the idea of, you know, launching missile strikes on the Kerch Bridge. and some people in the Pentagon, perhaps all of the people in the Pentagon,

might have known about that already. But the reckless way in which the Germans were talking over open lines with someone recording it and listening in, that will have made many people in Washington furious. And they will have come along, and they will have said to a newland,

look, this is absolutely unacceptable. This is absolutely crazy. We've been drawn into something we can't afford to be drawn into your friends in Europe are potentially getting themselves into enormous trouble and we're downed if we're going to let the United States be pulled into this and forced to come to the rescue of your friends. So you must go and this must stop. And I can very easily see how this could have crystallized all the problems which were undoubtedly already brewing. Now, I should say that another person who thinks as you do that this tourist missile conversation was a, you know, probably, you know, the catalyst, the final thing that brought Newland's, you know, resignation about is Ray McGovern.

And, of course, bear in mind, Ray McGovern, who is, you know, former top CIA analyst, he has. knows Washington. He knows people in Washington. He's also somebody who is familiar with the way things are done there in ways that we are not. And he's actually come out and said publicly that he thinks that the single event that probably was the trigger, the final trigger, was this affair of the recording that the Russians published of this German conversation about the tourist bridge. Now, can I say that, of course, brings us back to that recording, because and the discussion of who made it and how it was made. That's interesting in itself, because if there is an intrigue going on,

well, you know, maybe more than one party was involved. Apparently the Prime Minister, or the Foreign Minister of Singapore, has been saying some rather interesting things about how F-35 fighter jets. Defense Minister. Defense Minister. I mean, you know, flying over, you. Ukraine and monitoring the Russians, all that kind of, all that kind of thing. So maybe, maybe that's a hit that the Singaporeans themselves were involved after all. And, you know, I'm not saying this

is what happened, but perhaps, as I said, several parties were involved, the Russians, Singaporeans, perhaps even some people from the US, stranger things have happened. But, you know, I'm not going to say that was the case because of course I don't know. That's a whole other rabbit hole to go down. But just a final very quick question. She's not going to be going away. I imagine she's going to be in some think tank or somewhere, right? That's exactly right.

I mean, she's not going to remain a powerful force. She's still connected to the Kagan family. Of course, she's a member of the Kagan family. She's still treated by other neocons as neocon royalty. She remains a powerful figure in Washington and will continue to be so. And I would not be surprised if we start seeing articles from her appearing in the Washington Post or the New York Times and foreign policy, continuing to advocate the various courses that we all know about. And perhaps ultimately, because she's far from being a person who takes these things,

you know, forced resignations, if that's what it was easily, you know, we will probably start to get from her, her account of events, and perhaps her specific criticism of certain individuals. So, no, we're going to see an awful lot more of Newland. She's far from, disappeared from the scene. Unfortunately, all right, durend.orgals.com. We are at Rumpel, Odyssey, Fitzhue, Telegra, RockFid, and the Twitter X, and go to the Duran shop, 15% off all T-shirts. Take care.